From: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlcaGfdn9Kye1Gc8aGb67PDVQW4mKbQD7E <Amitai@web>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:19:06 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: response
X-Git-Tag: 3.20110321~7^2~3
X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/commitdiff_plain/efd9207e432ab8aa21fac8b8a4827624b2af7e3c

response
---

diff --git a/doc/plugins/aggregate/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/aggregate/discussion.mdwn
index a3336ee08..80788fb1b 100644
--- a/doc/plugins/aggregate/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/aggregate/discussion.mdwn
@@ -121,3 +121,15 @@ the user agent to be programmatically manipulated? --[[schmonz]]
 
 >> Pong.. I'd be happier with a more 100% solution that let cookies be used
 >> w/o needing to write a custom plugin to do it. --[[Joey]] 
+
+>>> According to LWP::UserAgent, for the common case, a complete
+>>> and valid configuration for `$config{cookies}` would be `{ file =>
+>>> "$ENV{HOME}/.cookies.txt" }`. In the more common case of not needing
+>>> to prime one's cookies, `cookie_jar` can be `undef` (that's the
+>>> default). In my less common case, the cookies are generated by
+>>> visiting a couple magic URLs, which would be trivial to turn into
+>>> config options, except that these particular URLs rely on SPNEGO
+>>> and so LWP::Authen::Negotiate has to be loaded. So I think adding
+>>> `$config{cookies}` (and using it in the aggregate plugin) should
+>>> be safe, might help people in typical cases, and won't prevent
+>>> further enhancements for less typical cases. --[[schmonz]]