Hugo Schmitt <[email protected]> wrote: > : verify-session ( session -- session ) > sessions get verify?>> [ > dup [ > dup > [ client>> remote-host = ] > [ user-agent>> user-agent = ] > bi and [ drop f ] unless > ] when > ] when ; > > My question is: suppose that "optionally not comparing remote-host" > was the fix, what would be the correct patch ? To add a slot that > tells me if I should verify the remote-host, or a dynamic variable > configuring that?
I can't think of any reason to keep verify-session (and the slots client and user-agent) at all. (+ verify? in TUPLE sessions) TBNL's solution was to make it optional. But when you can control the environment of accessing clients and know that both checks would work correctly, you don't need them. Quick and dirty solution: Change definition of <sessions> and put an f into the verify? slot. -- Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
