[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Interchange by date
][Interchange by thread
]
[ic] to Mike Heins: mv_tmp_session?
>> I want to make sure I understand what mv_tmp_session will do. If I
>> understand you from a previous thread correctly, it will disallow id= and
>> mv_pc= in the URL and store all session information in a cookie? Will
page
>> caching be a problem at that point? Will mv_pc=abc still be able to be
used
>> to record [data session source]?
>
> ( NOTE: I don't like messages without context, because they usually raise
> questions. In this case, whether you have read and acknowledged that this
> is 4.9 only. )
>
> I suggest you read the message I posted, which says that no session is
written
> to disk at all. Therefore there is obviously no way Interchange can
record
> anything about source in the way you seem to think might be possible.
>
> Nothing says you couldn't set a *cookie*, though, that you could later
> retrieve to get a source.
I apologize if my questions seem stupid. I am definitely a beginner. I'm
trying to figure out three things:
#1: Will mv_tmp_session solve my search engine indexing problems when 4.9
comes out or should I start digging into one of the other solutions that has
been mentioned? It WILL solve those problems if it keeps id= and mv_pc=
from being generated into the URL. Is that the case?
#2: Will using mv_tmp_session still allow me to set [data session source] to
a variable, evaluate the variable, and then set [data session source] to a
cookie?
#3: Also, will the absence of mv_pc=### in the URL cause any problems as far
as page caching? For example: with a single user, would an item displayed
as In Stock still be displayed as In Stock later on when it is Out of Stock?
If I can figure these three things out, I will be able to make an informed
decision about my search engine indexing dilemna. Thank you!
- Grant