Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84159 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74729 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2015 10:09:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Mar 2015 10:09:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:43090] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CF/24-48321-BE634F45 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:09:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 20164 invoked by uid 89); 2 Mar 2015 10:09:44 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 20158, pid: 20161, t: 0.0723s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@86.189.147.37) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 2 Mar 2015 10:09:43 -0000 Message-ID: <54F436E7.3060607@lsces.co.uk> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:09:43 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeev Suraski CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <54F42DDF.2070505@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive STH - some real world tests and updated RFC From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 02/03/15 09:47, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I'm obviously biased but I believe that the coercive rules actually cover a > lot more ground than the weak+strict sets. In other words, with > weak+strict, overall, you're going to have to add custom code in a lot more > cases than with the coercive rule set (either because weak is too weak and > strict will very frequently be too strict, while coercive provides a > rule-set that accepts sensible values and reject non-sensible ones, making > it work out of the box in most cases). But even with coercive, it's > definitely not a one size fits all solution, and it's not supposed to be > either. You still have custom code available to you. But since the horse is now out of the stable, we have to live with strict anyway, so where will coercive rules fit in if they get accepted as well? All of this is just creating different rules for sub-sets of users :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk