[Top][All Lists]

[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.


reply via email to

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