[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation
From: |
Klaus Weide |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation |
Date: |
Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:50:18 -0500 (CDT) |
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Leonid Pauzner wrote:
> 29-Oct-99 20:48 Klaus Weide wrote:
>
> > So here's a somewhat different idea: A 'save_cookies' flag that
> > tells lynx whther to *write* cookies to file or not.
> > In interactive mode, default is
> > - ON if persistent cookies are enabled
> > - OFF if persistent cookies are disabled
> > In noninteractive mode, default is
> > - OFF
>
> I think this is a very useful approach: always *read* cookies_file
> (when cookies are ON),
When (1) cookies are ON, or (2) when PERSISTENT_COOKIES are ON, or
(3) when cookies are ON *and* PERSISTENT_COOKIES are ON?
My idea was (2).
Actually there isn't currently really one "cookies are ON/OFF"
setting. There is SET_COOKIES which controls receiving (accepting)
of cookies in general, it doesn't affect the sending side of cookie
precoessing directly (you may still be sending cookies if SET_COOKIES:
FALSE but PERSISTENT_COOKIES:TRUE, see comments to SET_COOKIE in recent
lynx.cfg). Inconsistently, -cookies is the command line option that
corresponds to SET_COOKIE, but -cookies=off still doesn't turn all
cookie processing off, only the receiving-of-Set-Cookie side.
(I'd appreciate if someone would check whether that's actually all
true and not just my understanding...)
> but write to cookies_file conditionally;
> this is much better than current "PERSISTENT_COOKIES:TRUE/FALSE"
> behaviour. One could be a command line toggle
> and probably lynx.cfg option (instead of PERSISTENT_COOKIES:
>
> in this particular case I feel it is not bad to break backward compatibility
> with naming convention - persistent cookies were experimental anyway.
> And EXP_PERSISTENT_COOKIES could now be renamed to PERSISTENT_COOKIES symbol:)
[ second attempt ;)]
My idea was to require a change from -dump users that want cookies
saved (they need to set one additional flag/option), not from
interactive users. I think that's more acceptable.
But if you find that, for the sake of clarity, it's worth
inconveniencing more of the current users, let's discuss it further.
Klaus
- lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Patrick Payne, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Kim DeVaughn, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, brian j pardy, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, brian j pardy, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, brian j pardy, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/29
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Leonid Pauzner, 1999/10/30
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation,
Klaus Weide <=
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Vlad Harchev, 1999/10/31
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/30
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/31
Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/21
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/23
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, David Woolley, 1999/10/24