http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1447812/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/safehtml/shared/UriUtils.java File user/src/com/google/gwt/safehtml/shared/UriUtils.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1447812/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/safehtml/shared/UriUtils.java#newcode209 user/src/com/google/gwt/safehtml/shared/UriUtils.java:209: * safe!</strong> unsafeCastFromUntrustedString() is better. Can we also deprecate the method? Use code should always be able to use one of the other methods. Only library code (GWT and libraries based on GWT) have the legacy support problem. On 2011/06/02 17:45:16, xtof wrote:
On 2011/06/02 13:47:05, jlabanca wrote: > This method worries me. When I saw the name, I assumed it was the
equivalent
of > fromString(). Anyone who looks at the method name without reading
the JavaDoc
> might assume the same. > > I suggest we remove the method and let users manage unsafe URIs.
That forces
> the user to make the tough decisions, whether they sanitize the URI,
or call
> fromTrustedString() even if the URI isn't trusted.
This method is intended for use in places where a string we don't know
anything
about needs to be turned into a SafeUri in a legacy-API situation. For
instance
in this CL, the Image class has been refactored to use SafeUri
internally.
However, it retains the Image(String uri) constructor, which uses this
method to
turn the string into a SafeUri to call the Image(SafeUri uri)
constructor with.
I'd prefer that we don't use the fromTrustedString method in those
situations:
Use of that method is essentially an assertion by the programmer that
they can
ensure from context that the argument satisfies the SafeUri contract.
In the
Image(String) case, this is not so.
I agree that the name isn't scary enough though.
Perhaps, "unsafeCastFromUntrustedString" or something like that?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1447812/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
