[ic] Cookies-Enabled Checking Routine

[interchange-users@icdevgroup.org (G Guttero)]

>>Why is the cookies-enabled checking routine in the demo like this:
>>
>>	[calc]
>>		my $cname = $Config->{CookieName} || 'MV_SESSION_ID';
>>		$Scratch->{have_cookie} = $Tag->read_cookie($cname)
>>			and delete $Scratch->{tried};
>>		return;
>>	[/calc]
>>	[if scratch have_cookie]
>>	[elsif scratch tried]
>>     		You must have cookies set to leave the basket. Check out now or 
>>forever
>>     		lose your shopping cart.
>>	[/elsif]
>>	[else]
>>		[set tried]1[/set]
>>		[bounce href="[area ord/basket]"]
>>	[/else]
>>	[/if]
>>
>>Why isn't it simple like:
>>
>>[if type=explicit compare="q{[read-cookie MV_SESSION_ID]}"]
>>[else]
>>You must have cookies set to leave the basket. Check out now or forever 
>>lose your shopping cart.
>>[/else]
>>[/if]
>>
>>What is the added benefit of the top one?
>
>It is compatible with any session id cookie name, for one. Most people
>wouldn't change it, but you can name the cookie anything.
>
>In later IC versions, you could probably do:
>
>catalog.cfg:
>
>	AutoVariable  CookieName
>
>then
>
>[if type=explicit compare="q{[read-cookie __CookieName__]}"]
>[else]
>You must have cookies set to leave the basket. Check out now or >forever 
>lose your shopping cart.
>[/else]
>[/if]
>
>But that requires setup changes, and the way it is works with any
>configuration.

I totally understand what you're saying there.  But why bother with the 
scratch variable "tried" and the bounce?  I just want to make sure I'm not 
missing something.  Why not:

[calc]
my $cname = $Config->{CookieName} || 'MV_SESSION_ID';
$Scratch->{have_cookie} = $Tag->read_cookie($cname)
and delete $Scratch->{tried};
return;
[/calc]
[if scratch have_cookie]
[else]No cookies?[/else]
[/if]

- Grant

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com