[geeklog-devel] JavaScript, again

Joe Mucchiello joe at ThrowingDice.com
Tue Nov 10 20:09:17 EST 2009

At 04:23 PM 11/10/2009, Dirk Haun wrote:
>[JS security]
> >Not sure how much there is really to discuss here.
>Not knowing how much there is to discuss is part of my problem :)

JS security is not more difficult (or simple) than PHP security. JS 
allows you to send requests to the server. As long as the server side 
is secure you are 90% there. The only thing you have to worry about 
after that is someone intercepting your requests. Not a huge concern 
really but something to think about. You can pretend AJAX is just a 
form of webservices from Geeklog's point of view if you wanted.

> >Coke vs Pepsi.  AptitudeCMS only uses jQuery for it's vibrant community and
> >documentation.  The most important note, however, is it is completely up to
> >each plugin in AptitudeCMS to decide which JS library they want.  Choice
> >there is good but as it pertains to the GL core, yes, you have to pick and I
> >don't think you'll get much complaining.
>As I mentioned on the forum discussion, I think we just need some JS
>code in the core to be able to implement certain features. This
>shouldn't stop a theme designer or plugin author from using another JS

Technically no, but sending more than one JS library to the client 
are bandwidth and page load time issues.

I still say mootools is more Geeklogish but I can't fault choosing 
jQuery over it. I just associate jQuery with glitz and mootools with 
substance over style.

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games

More information about the geeklog-devel mailing list