4 ms·
Yeah - OTOH, it was a double-edged sword, since you had to re-run the same validation on the server side, and you had to be careful to make sure they were in sy
by commandlinefan 6y ago
Yeah - OTOH, it was a double-edged sword, since you had to re-run the same validation on the server side, and you had to be careful to make sure they were in sync.
Of course, this brings back painful memories of multiple occasions where somebody said, "this is dumb, we already validated it on the client side, we don't have to re-validate it on the server side" and took out the server-side validation (even after I tried in vain to explain to them why that was a security hole...)
- duxup 6y agoIt's just hard to avoid the whole two pronged validation situation. You just have to accept you're going to do it on both ends. If at all possible I think of client side as "active" validation with lots of feedback and such built in. Back end is "passive / defensive" where validation is more 'nope just not gonna do that'. Every time I think "let's see how much I can do this on the back end" it ends up being kinda wonky, I'm sure it is possible but just human interaction type stuff, I like it on the front. Security, detailed rules, etc, back.