BTW Have you seen Dan's Mask JS API sample? Very cool. Shows you yet another way HTML forms could be improved on. I've experimented with key filtering myself...only seems to work in IE.
Matthew Walker Electric Sheep Web http://www.electricsheep.co.nz/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael T. Tangorre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:49 AM Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0 > I do both. If the JS is enabled then you do not waste system resources > processing the page looking for validation errors, if JS is disbaled you are > covered. I think you should always do both: helps ensure data integrity and > offers a second level of protection. > > Mike > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:38 AM > Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > > > What kind if validation would you do on the server side for a form? I > think > > (probably quite reckless) that most people will have JS enabled etc....I > do > > see what you mean though - then again, if I was going 100% server side I > > wouldnt bother with Client Side...can be arsed doing it twice. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 22 July 2003 15:33 > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > > > > > Well if the extra time used to generate the javascript used in cfform is > > huge performance hit then that would be a good reason not to use it. Of > > course we all realize we need server side validation but what's often > > overlooked is the amount of server processing that can be reduced as a > > result of using Javascript. Also in the absence of a good api like the > > ones provided by pengoworks, building your own involves the minor task > > of ensuring its cross browser compatible. > > > > > > Kola > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: webguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: 22 July 2003 15:21 > > >> To: CF-Talk > > >> Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > >> > > >> Matt Liotta did some checking and it appears that for every sub tag > > in > > >> cfform (e.g. <cfinput ..> ) the page rendering times grow > > exponentially. > > >> > > >> That was in up3 i think. > > >> > > >> WG > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: 22 July 2003 15:08 > > >> To: CF-Talk > > >> Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > >> > > >> > > >> I suppose so. I have used it in the past quite a bit, but found it > > fell > > >> short in some areas or I had to combine it with additional JS. It > > just > > >> made > > >> more sense to me to use one or the other, and since the qForms API or > > >> even > > >> custom written stuff was more flexible I have just kind of stuck with > > >> that. > > >> Nothing against really, I just often need more than what it offers. > > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: "Kola Oyedeji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:03 AM > > >> Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > >> > > >> > > >> > Interesting I used to be of the same mind set, however after taking > > >> > another look I think the cfform validation (not the built in > > cfserver > > >> > validation) is quite useful. > > >> > > > >> > Why re-invent the wheel? Granted its not that flexible but when you > > >> > quickly want to knock up a form with a few required fields it saves > > on > > >> > development time. > > >> > > > >> > Mike I'd suggest another look, they may be more useful( or useless > > ;-) > > >> ) > > >> > than you think. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Kola > > >> > > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> > >> From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > >> Sent: 22 July 2003 14:53 > > >> > >> To: CF-Talk > > >> > >> Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thats a good question :-) > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Some things in CF are available, yet not recommended by alot of > > >> > users; > > >> > >> cfform is one of them. > > >> > >> In terms of validation and having more flexibility Id recommend > > >> using > > >> > >> qForms > > >> > >> API (www.pengoworks.com). > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Mike > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >> From: "Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > >> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:49 AM > > >> > >> Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > What's so horrible about using CFFORM for simple validation > > for a > > >> > field > > >> > >> > that's either required/not required?? > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Isn't that why it is included in CFMX? > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -Gel > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > >> > From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) > > >> > >> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > the fact you are using cfform is sheer madness! > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
