lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]