>> Now - your comment implies that JSON is specfied in a certain way, which >> doesn't allow for this. Ok. But I think that I have a real usecase here. >> Especially when there are situations where one can't control the >> javascript that will use the JSON-output (which I'm capable of, in this >> case, but other cases one can't), it might save one from larger troubles. > > That's simply ridiculous. If the script expects JSON, then it isn't > going to require things that are impossible with JSON! > >> Are you adamant about not putting it into simplejson? > > There is absolutely no way I will add features to simplejson that > encourage people to produce documents that are not valid JSON.
Ok - you showed me a to work around that, so I'm happy. But I don't agree with you that it is a ridiculous request. I can very well imagine cases in which allowing an expression to be evaluated that goes beyond simple literals can save one tremendous trouble. In fact, I've seen such code. It bypassed some deep dojo magic to force a logout in case of a session timeout. The alternative would have been to create a polling watchdog on the client-side that would have done that. Both solutions aren't beautiful, but the server-side scripting "attack" is the more robust IMHO. Thanks for the help with my original troubles! Diez --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
