The only times cookies would be used would be: 1. If you explicitly use it. 2. If you have redirects turned on, and a page that redirects you also sets a cookie.
I would think that we would want (2) to be on regardless of user setting, do you disagree? Michael On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Aristid Breitkreuz <[email protected]> wrote: > Just make sure Cookie handling can be disabled completely. > > Aristid > > Am 23.01.2012 07:44 schrieb "Michael Snoyman" <[email protected]>: >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Myles C. Maxfield >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 1. Oops - I overlooked the fact that the redirectCount attribute of a >> > Request is exported (it isn't listed on the documentation probably >> > because >> > the constructor itself isn't exported. This seems like a flaw in >> > Haddock...). Silly me. No need to export httpRaw. >> > >> > 2. I think that stuffing many arguments into the 'http' function is >> > ugly. >> > However, I'm not sure that the number of arguments to 'http' could ever >> > reach an unreasonably large amount. Perhaps I have bad foresight, but I >> > personally feel that adding cookies to the http request will be the last >> > thing that we will need to add. Putting a bound on this growth of >> > arguments >> >> I completely disagree here. If we'd followed this approach, rawBody, >> decompress, redirectCount, and checkStatus all would have been >> arguments. There's a reason we use a settings data type[1] here. >> >> [1] http://www.yesodweb.com/blog/2011/10/settings-types >> >> > makes me more willing to think about this option. On the other hand, >> > using a >> > BrowserAction to modify internal state is very elegant. Which approach >> > do >> > you think is best? I think I'm leaning toward the upper-level Browser >> > module >> > idea. >> > >> > If there was to be a higher-level HTTP library, I would argue that the >> > redirection code should be moved into it, and the only high-level >> > function >> > that the Network.HTTP.Conduit module would export is 'http' (or >> > httpRaw). >> > What do you think about this? >> >> I actually don't want to move the redirection code out from where it >> is right now. I think that redirection *is* a basic part of HTTP. I'd >> be more in favor of just bundling cookies in with the current API, >> possibly with the IORef approach I'd mentioned (unless someone wants >> to give a different idea). Having a single API that provides both >> high-level and low-level approaches seems like a win to me. >> >> Michael >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
