|
|
Posted by Jochem Maas on 09/30/88 11:20
messju mohr wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 11:30:14AM +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
>
>>anybody care to explain that?
>
>
> someone requested that feature and somebody else implemented it. it's
> that simple.
well if it's like that then I'm wondering why you/others repeatedly bash
the 'keep it simple for the developers - and don't given them 'programmatic'
interfaces/paradigms to work with, they will get confused and f*** it up'
drum.
basically I think you gave a bogus answer, messju. and if you really stand by
it - rather than it being an off-the-cuff retort - then your arguments
regarding uncoupling/seperating the designer from [complex] code and
programming-related resposibilities (like making sure no tainted data makes it
into the output) are very weak IMHO, because a feature request, the fact that somebody codes
the feature and whether the implemented feature in included in the codebase are 3 seperate
things but by your logic implementing something equates to including it in the codebase.
I.m sure that's all not true but as fas as I am concerned it still leaves
the fact that stuffing (in this example) REQUEST superglobals into the scope
compiled templates run in is not right according to your own arguments regarding
accomodating the designer's role inside a work/development-process.
I would argue that Smarty should be blocking access to GET/POST/REQUEST
(as much as is possible) by default.
what do you think?
rgds,
Jochem
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|