|
|
Posted by Jochem Maas on 09/30/55 11:20
messju mohr wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:51:28PM +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> (just to clarify: i was in neither of the two parties above)
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> are you trolling? it should read "keep it simple for the designers, so
no I'm not. I use Smarty everyday, I accept it the way it is mostly and hack it
where I can/need (which is not much!). I'm entitled to speak up about the
whys and wherefores - personally I think indepth discussion about
theory as well as practice is a good thing, but if you want to start
waving the troll flag as soon as someone questions [part of] Smarty's
design/implementation that is your perogative.
> give them *simple* 'programmatic' interfaces/paradigms to work with"
> or something like that, i think.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> no. that's your interpretation, not my logic. you are trolling, don't you?
>
how very dismissive, how completely redundant (you say 'your interpretation'
while I already said 'IHMO' - which explicitly qualifies it as an opinion aka
an interpretation) - why not get into the specifics of the code rather than
start to get all defensive and call names?
- btw "you are trolling, don't you?" is not correct english, write
"you are trolling, aren't you?" instead :-)
>
>>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?
>
>
> I think there are features in smarty that i don't need, so I don't use
> them (request vars is one of them, method-calls is another one). And
> I think you should act the same
I do that thanks, you're the one who has repeatly harked on about
'how things should be for designers' (a vision I largely don't happen
to share) I was just pointing out that the availability of GPC vars doesn't
gel in that regard.
you wrote "I think you should act the same" ... that's just to easy
to rip apart :-)
>
> greetings
> messju
>
>
>>rgds,
>>Jochem
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|