perl-embperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gerald Richter" <rich...@ecos.de>
Subject RE: [$ hidden $] bug in 2.0?
Date Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:03:49 GMT
> > 
> > Should behave the same in Embperl 1.3, if not it is an bug 
> in Embperl 
> > 1.3 (as you know @ffld gets automaticly setup for 
> parameters posted to 
> > the page, so maybe your testcase are slightly different for 2.0 and 
> > 1.3?)
> 
> No, this works when I enable 1.3 and it doesn't work when I 
> enable 2.0. Under 1.3.6, if you set a variable in %fdat 
> anywhere prior to the [$hidden$], then this will get included 
> in the [$hidden$] set if the variable was not previously 
> explicitly expressed in the form.
> 

Mmmh, the code the selects the fields are excatly the same in Embperl 1.3
and 2.0. Also the tests are the same. I don't see that anythings has changed
nor was it intended to change it.

When I do the same test with Embperl 1.3 and 2.0 both return nothing to me

Gerald



> In both the Embperl 1.3 and 2.0 documentation, under the 
> [$hidden$] section, it doesn't mention @ffld at all (though 
> it may elsewhere) - it simply says that the "default used for 
> the first hash is
> %fdat":
> 
> http://perl.apache.org/embperl/pod/doc/doc13/HTML/Embperl.-page-7-.htm
> http://perl.apache.org/embperl/pod/doc/Embperl.-page-3-.htm
> 
> So I just put stuff in %fdat if I want it included in hidden 
> fields automatically.
> 
> I think anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed 
> that the way to "communicate" additional fields to Embperl 
> for the [$hidden$] command would simply add the variables to 
> %fdat, since that is the only one mentioned (and it says it's 
> the default) in the [$hidden$] section.
> 
> I have a *lot* of code that works using %fdat. Isn't it 
> possible (and desirable) to make 2.0 behave in the same way 
> that 1.3 did, for purposes of backward compatibility? I guess 
> backward compatibility includes quirks that perhaps you 
> didn't intend, but I don't really see how this one is so 
> harmful. I don't really see why it should be necessary to use 
> two variables (fdat and ffld) when one seemed to do the job 
> quite well before.
> 
> Just my opinion as a user of course...
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Neil
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: embperl-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: embperl-help@perl.apache.org
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: embperl-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: embperl-help@perl.apache.org


Mime
View raw message