I can't see that being a problem if you are incorporating proper serverside form validation. Serverside you should be checking all validation rules, does it exist, is it the required datatype, the required length...
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:42:38 -0500, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doesn't that just cause any ugly CF error if they don't provide the > info? (required checkbox or radio button for instance)... > > This probably sounds rather silly, especially coming from a veteran > like myself, but I've been noticing or rather more thinking about > lately the idea of rethinking the way that I typically use <cfparam> > for this reason alone... I've always in the past, and I think this is > fairly common, used something like this: > > <cfparam name="attributes.objectid" type="numeric" default="0"> > > <cfif objectid>... do stuff ...</cfif> > > In my case the attributes scope is a combination of form and url > variables... And at a first glance this looks really good because it's > nice and validated, you know the data going in is correct. But here's > the problem -- if a user happens to be muddling with the url and > accidentally types a non-numeric character into that url variable, > instead of being ignored the cfparam produces a big ugly cf-error that > the user won't want to see... and using val() in the default attribute > is no help of course because it's not the default value that's at > fault. (and yea, I've made the mistake of type="numeric" default="" > before too). > > So I'm starting to think that for the base templates or otherwise > publicly accessible templates, this structure is better: > > <cfparam name="attributes.objectid" type="string" default=""> > > <cfif val(objectid)>... do stuff ...</cfif> > > Although the code is only very subtly different, this structure will > never produce the ugly cf error message as a result of a user > accidentally malforming the url, because they can't possibly provide a > value to the server in the url that CF won't interpret as a string. > > I dunno... maybe I'm just tired and distracted and making a big deal > out of nothing... anydoby else? > > > s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080 > new epoch : isn't it time for a change? > > add features without fixtures with > the onTap open source framework > > http://macromedia.breezecentral.com/p49777853/ > http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=48229&DE=1 > http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1 > http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1 > http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=48229&DE=1 > http://www.fusiontap.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:197477 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
