Gertjan
> 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.
This is true for paged based development (.CSP), it is not for class
based development (.CLS) where the superclass is specified explicitly in
each page.
> >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?
Here's an example:
Class Test.String Extends %Persistent [ ClassType = persistent,
ProcedureBlock ]
{
Property name As %String;
}
AB>s oString=##class(Test.String).%New()
AB>s
oString.name="aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax"
AB>w oString.%Save()
1
AB>w oString.name
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
AB>
The default behaviour is simply to truncate data, this is almost never
the right thing to do and almost always gets missed during testing
unless you know to look for it.
Regards
George
George James Software
VC/m - The force of change
www.georgejames.com
+44-1932-252568
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gertjan Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: 26 August 2004 13:24
> Posted To: Cach� Newsgroup
> Conversation: Job command and licenses
> Subject: Re: CSP development
>
>
> 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
>
