Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95336 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6714 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2016 08:35:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Aug 2016 08:35:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:42723] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8A/14-03566-B5618B75 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 04:35:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 113807 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2016 08:35:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-qk0-f179.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@209.85.220.179) by 0 with ESMTPA; 20 Aug 2016 08:35:35 -0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z190so59193993qkc.0 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 01:35:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuUGARsr5+udiwA/giBckzlEKGOJKOGuCfiAwYzzrditlQxLiYMuVugZlxoGcBGWiB6oc7f4fdcnYEvdw== X-Received: by 10.55.76.17 with SMTP id z17mr12547996qka.96.1471682129890; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 01:35:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.85.242 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 01:34:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:34:48 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Dan Ackroyd , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] Add validation functions to filter module From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) Hi Pierre, On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> I'm planning to propose "Filter module deprecation" when this RFC >> is declined, because current validation filter is not good enough to >> do the job and makes situation worse than better... If deprecation >> RFC is declined also, then I might try to improve this RFC again. > > I already can say I will vote no for that one. > > I use filter a lot and it fits my needs quite well. I would prefer better > api like method->get... But what we have already allows me to do quick&eazy > filtering. Thank you for comment. Current filter is good enough if app design allows to convert some inputs to safe inputs. I agree. I would like to keep filter module, so I'm proposing strict validator features. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net