At 05:45 AM 10/16/2002 +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>Another option.
>
>How about remove $_FILES contents from $_REQUEST?
>It seems it has less impact.
+1 for this option. There's really no need it for to
be in $_REQUEST..
+1 from me too. I think
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:38:52AM -0500, Chris Shiflett wrote :
>>> > While I think it is a bit unintuitive to have $_FILES separate like it
>>> > is (rat
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Derick Rethans wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:38:52AM -0500, Chris Shiflett wrote :
>> > While I think it is a bit unintuitive to have $_FILES separate like it
>> > is (rather than a part of $_POST, for example), I think i
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:38:52AM -0500, Chris Shiflett wrote :
> > While I think it is a bit unintuitive to have $_FILES separate like it
> > is (rather than a part of $_POST, for example), I think it would be much
> > worse to also separate it fr
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:38:52AM -0500, Chris Shiflett wrote :
> While I think it is a bit unintuitive to have $_FILES separate like it
> is (rather than a part of $_POST, for example), I think it would be much
> worse to also separate it from $_REQUEST. After all, as Sterling pointed
> out,
While I think it is a bit unintuitive to have $_FILES separate like it
is (rather than a part of $_POST, for example), I think it would be much
worse to also separate it from $_REQUEST. After all, as Sterling pointed
out, it is part of the request.
Chris
Derick Rethans wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> At 23:13 15-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> >Another option.
> >
> >How about remove $_FILES contents from $_REQUEST?
> >It seems it has less impact.
>
> I don't think Zeev and Derick will be able to go on any trips for a while
> then :-)
>
> First
Thanks, I see your point now.
I like the solution 2, even though it is a bit ugly.
Sterling Hughes wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 05:35, Chris Shiflett wrote:
>
>
>>Is the thought here that no one will be depending on the weird format of
>>the $_REQUEST array as mentioned in the bug report? I
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 05:35, Chris Shiflett wrote:
> Right. I was just wondering if there was a reason why the $_POST array
> wasn't originally created like Sterling suggested for $_FILES and
> $_REQUEST in his solution 1:
>
> $_FILES['toto']['c']['type'] and $_REQUEST['toto']['c']['type']
>
>
Right. I was just wondering if there was a reason why the $_POST array
wasn't originally created like Sterling suggested for $_FILES and
$_REQUEST in his solution 1:
$_FILES['toto']['c']['type'] and $_REQUEST['toto']['c']['type']
Meaning, I'm not clear why $_FILES is necessary, since the same
Because there is more data associated with a file upload than just a
single piece.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Chris Shiflett wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why are files treated differently than all other form
> variables submitted via POST?
>
> We don't have $_TEXT, $_RADIO, etc.
>
> Maybe there is a goo
Out of curiosity, why are files treated differently than all other form
variables submitted via POST?
We don't have $_TEXT, $_RADIO, etc.
Maybe there is a good reason, but it seems counter-intuitive to me.
Chris
Sterling Hughes wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 04:45, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 04:45, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> >Another option.
> >
> >How about remove $_FILES contents from $_REQUEST?
> >It seems it has less impact.
>
> +1 for this option. There's really no need it for to
> be in $_REQUEST..
>
ex
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>Another option.
>
>How about remove $_FILES contents from $_REQUEST?
>It seems it has less impact.
+1 for this option. There's really no need it for to
be in $_REQUEST..
--Jani
>--
>Yasuo Ohgaki
>
>Sterling Hughes wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> First 'force' people to use superglobals, then say "ehm - yeah, but ehm
> uploaded files are not userdata, because they are not in $_REQUEST".
Is it very important?
Anyway, it is easier to write more robust application with
$_GET/$_PSOT/$_COOKIE/$_FILES, IMO. $_REQUEST
At 23:13 15-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>Another option.
>
>How about remove $_FILES contents from $_REQUEST?
>It seems it has less impact.
I don't think Zeev and Derick will be able to go on any trips for a while
then :-)
First 'force' people to use superglobals, then say "ehm - yeah, but ehm
Another option.
How about remove $_FILES contents from $_REQUEST?
It seems it has less impact.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Hey,
>
> If you haven't taken a look @: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=19848
>
> please do so...
>
> In thinking about it, to me, there are 2 solutions:
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
