Re: P1: How to make webcatalog more stable. - LONG
This WebDNA talk-list message is from
1999
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 24141
interpreted = N
texte = >>I know that in-house we do over three hundred checks on an email address to >>check for validity, setting an error= variable when a condition happens. > > How can you possibly have 300 different checks on an email address? That > seems like al awful lot of checks on a single field. No matter how many > webdna checks you perform on an email address, those checks will never tell > you if the email address is actually valid or not -- thus it seems there > comes a point when more checks on the email address are a waste ...Here's a short sample... [!]=-=-=-=AOL=-=-=-=-=[/!] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]aol.net[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]a0l.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]oaol.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]@ol.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]@oal.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]@alo.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]@aolcom[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]@americaonline[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]@aql.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [URL][_email][/URL]^[URL]@a.o.l.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif]You should see the lists for hotmail, compuserver, illegal characters, bad extensions, etc, etc... Too say the least, these three hundred lines of code have cut down on email typos to the point where we really don't have much of a email list bounce problem because of bogus illegal email addresses. (on a list of 100,000 names, mailed weekly, it makes quite a difference!) >>Lets say that we then want to give them the >>opportunity to fix the errors of their ways. >> >>Our simple >> >> >>now would look like: >> >>but this has two problems. >> >>1) the first time you come to the page, WebCatalog has no idea of the field >>[email] so it will literally put the text [email] in the box. Ugly >> >>so we fix this by putting: >>>value=[hideif [email]=[raw][email][/raw]][email][/hideif]> > > That's a very OLD-FASHIONED way to hide the [email] tag! > Why don't you try an up-to-date and far simpler method? > > There is a very *simple* technique available that uses text variables to > make this field blank the first time you come to the page. Just put > [text]email=[/text] at the top of the page and the email variable will be > set to 'blank' before the form gets filled in by webcat -- which means you > NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HIDING IT EVER AGAIN!!! > > By the way, you can do the same thing with every other field in the form as > well ... :)Almost every single form I code loops back to itself to do data validation BEFORE redirecting to the next page. This way, if something is wrong, I can fill in the bad data the user supplied back into the field they supplied it in, and give them the chance to fix it.using your method, I would wipe out my data (depending on where I put your tags) either before I error checked it, or before I allowed the visitor to fix it. Neither is acceptable.Setting text to blank is ONLY handy if you have no need for any existing value of that variable that may be coming to that page.>>Therefor now we have to expand our input field a little. >>>value=[hideif [url][email][/url]=%5Bemail%5D][email][/hideif]> > > No, no, no, you do NOT have to use all this convoluted code! This is a > crazy technique to use with webcat 3.x when other techniques are faster to > code, simpler to understand, and faster to interpret by webcatalog.Nobody (including Grant) could find one. Simply wiping out the variable is unacceptable, See above.> Brian, when you asked about this technique two weeks ago, I gave you my > text variable solution within about 5 minutes -- so you would *not* have to > hide the [email] tag like you seem to insist on doing now. I don't know > why, but for some reason you never replied to my request asking you how it > was going. You didn't even reply when I asked you a second time via private > email ... ?Sorry, I missed the private email (The email filters sometimes kick in on good mail, but I get about 2000 messages a day, so ....)> Did you have a problem implementing it? > Or didn't I explain it clearly enough for you to try it? > Or was it too simple for you to believe that it would actually work?it won't work, it will wipe out pre existing data. data loss is unacceptable. My method (crude as it is, so blame me for using webDNA as best I can) guarantees that this field will be hidden, IF AND ONLY IF the field was undefined. All of my pages have the possibility that data will be passed to them before they render. Brian B. Burton BOFH - Department of Redundancy Department --------------------------------------------------------------- MMT Solutions - Specializing in Online Shopping Solutions 973-808-8644 http://www.safecommerce.comSarcasm is just one more service we offer.------------------------------------------------------------- Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server. To end your Mail problems go to .This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
>>I know that in-house we do over three hundred checks on an email address to >>check for validity, setting an error= variable when a condition happens. > > How can you possibly have 300 different checks on an email address? That > seems like al awful lot of checks on a single field. No matter how many > webdna checks you perform on an email address, those checks will never tell > you if the email address is actually valid or not -- thus it seems there > comes a point when more checks on the email address are a waste ...Here's a short sample... [!]=-=-=-=AOL=-=-=-=-=[/!] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]aol.net[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]a0l.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]oaol.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]@ol.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]@oal.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]@alo.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]@aolcom[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]@americaonline[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]@aql.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif] [showif [url][_email][/URL]^[url]@a.o.l.com[/URL]][math show=f]error=error+1[/math][/showif]You should see the lists for hotmail, compuserver, illegal characters, bad extensions, etc, etc... Too say the least, these three hundred lines of code have cut down on email typos to the point where we really don't have much of a email list bounce problem because of bogus illegal email addresses. (on a list of 100,000 names, mailed weekly, it makes quite a difference!) >>Lets say that we then want to give them the >>opportunity to fix the errors of their ways. >> >>Our simple >> >> >>now would look like: >> >>but this has two problems. >> >>1) the first time you come to the page, WebCatalog has no idea of the field >>[email] so it will literally put the text [email] in the box. Ugly >> >>so we fix this by putting: >>>value=[hideif [email]=[raw][email][/raw]][email][/hideif]> > > That's a very OLD-FASHIONED way to hide the [email] tag! > Why don't you try an up-to-date and far simpler method? > > There is a very *simple* technique available that uses text variables to > make this field blank the first time you come to the page. Just put > [text]email=[/text] at the top of the page and the email variable will be > set to 'blank' before the form gets filled in by webcat -- which means you > NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HIDING IT EVER AGAIN!!! > > By the way, you can do the same thing with every other field in the form as > well ... :)Almost every single form I code loops back to itself to do data validation BEFORE redirecting to the next page. This way, if something is wrong, I can fill in the bad data the user supplied back into the field they supplied it in, and give them the chance to fix it.using your method, I would wipe out my data (depending on where I put your tags) either before I error checked it, or before I allowed the visitor to fix it. Neither is acceptable.Setting text to blank is ONLY handy if you have no need for any existing value of that variable that may be coming to that page.>>Therefor now we have to expand our input field a little. >>>value=[hideif [url][email][/url]=%5Bemail%5D][email][/hideif]> > > No, no, no, you do NOT have to use all this convoluted code! This is a > crazy technique to use with webcat 3.x when other techniques are faster to > code, simpler to understand, and faster to interpret by webcatalog.Nobody (including Grant) could find one. Simply wiping out the variable is unacceptable, See above.> Brian, when you asked about this technique two weeks ago, I gave you my > text variable solution within about 5 minutes -- so you would *not* have to > hide the [email] tag like you seem to insist on doing now. I don't know > why, but for some reason you never replied to my request asking you how it > was going. You didn't even reply when I asked you a second time via private > email ... ?Sorry, I missed the private email (The email filters sometimes kick in on good mail, but I get about 2000 messages a day, so ....)> Did you have a problem implementing it? > Or didn't I explain it clearly enough for you to try it? > Or was it too simple for you to believe that it would actually work?it won't work, it will wipe out pre existing data. data loss is unacceptable. My method (crude as it is, so blame me for using webDNA as best I can) guarantees that this field will be hidden, IF AND ONLY IF the field was undefined. All of my pages have the possibility that data will be passed to them before they render. Brian B. Burton BOFH - Department of Redundancy Department --------------------------------------------------------------- MMT Solutions - Specializing in Online Shopping Solutions 973-808-8644 http://www.safecommerce.comSarcasm is just one more service we offer.------------------------------------------------------------- Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server. To end your Mail problems go to .This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Brian B. Burton
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...