George James wrote: >Basing your application on a sub-class of %CSP.Page gives you the >opportunity in the future to make change globally that you didn't >originally anticipate (eg security patches).
I agree, and routinely set the CSP application superclass to one I created myself, although not for security reasons. Is there something inherently insecure about %CSP.Page? >It's a lot easier if you already have the structure for this in place. Not sure about this -- AFAICS, all that is required is setting the super in Configuration Manager, and recompiling the CSP pages. A bit more work than doing it from the start, sure, but not *that* much. (In the past, when compiling a CSP super class, you needed to recompile all dependent CSP pages as well, but I can't reproduce this on 5.0.8, so perhaps I misremember, or this is no longer an issue.) >Data type classes are my other favourite place for sub-classing, if only >because of the non-failsafe default behaviour of %Library.String. You've made me curious -- what is this non-failsafe behaviour? Gertjan. -- Gertjan Klein
