Re: Re: Logical question-to upate DB records

Only one "Detail" will make it to the form processor; you can't overload text inputs with multiple options like you can with, say, checkboxes.

Um, really? Are you sure of this? I was under the impression that "overloading", as you put it, was purely a function of the CGI module, that the html would just send a bunch of foo=bar;foo=baz;foo=qux in the querystatement then the module would handle collapsing it?

Comment on Re: Re: Logical question-to upate DB records Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Logical question-to upate DB records by gowen (Initiate) on Jun 17, 2004 at 20:05 UTC
I was under the impression that "overloading", as you put it, was purely a function of the CGI module, that the html would just send a bunch of foo=bar;foo=baz;foo=qux in the querystatement then the module would handle collapsing it? You are correct - the actual HTTP submission by the browser will contain the repeated entries even for text inputs and the like. I wouldn't recommend relying on that, though, because it forces you to handle bottom-up form processing (including handling the URL encoding and crap like that). Even if you don't mind today, you'll be in a hole when you decide to just use CGI.pm or whatever tomorrow because it has that one added feature you'd like. I speak as someone who once tried to save some time doing this and found it wasn't worth it in the end 8)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Logical question-to upate DB records
by gowen (Initiate) on Jun 17, 2004 at 20:05 UTC

I was under the impression that "overloading", as you put it, was purely a function of the CGI module, that the html would just send a bunch of foo=bar;foo=baz;foo=qux in the querystatement then the module would handle collapsing it?

You are correct - the actual HTTP submission by the browser will contain the repeated entries even for text inputs and the like. I wouldn't recommend relying on that, though, because it forces you to handle bottom-up form processing (including handling the URL encoding and crap like that). Even if you don't mind today, you'll be in a hole when you decide to just use CGI.pm or whatever tomorrow because it has that one added feature you'd like.

I speak as someone who once tried to save some time doing this and found it wasn't worth it in the end 8)

[reply]