On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:09:13PM -0400, timo@timo-tasi.org wrote: > hola. > On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:09:16AM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > > A.M. Kuchling writes: > > > (Are marshals safer than pickles? What if SerialCookie used marshal > > > instead?) > > A bit safer, I think, but this maintains the backward compatibility > > issue. > Is this true? > Marshal is backwards compatible to Pickle? No, what Fred meant is that it maintains the backward compatibility *issue*, not compatibility itself. It's still a problem for people who want to read cookies made by the 'old' version, or otherwise want to read in 'old' cookies. I think it would be possible to provide a 'safe' unpickle, that only unpickles primitives, for example, but that might *still* maintain the backwards compatibility issue, even if it's less of an issue then. And it's a bloody lot of work, too :-) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4