[bop-devel] inconsistencies / a need for a more formal B::OP specification?

[Ivan Kohler]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:15:11AM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Phil Lobbes wrote:
> >This one is definitely trickier as the way you authenticate to various
> >backends certainly varies but if we can find a standard-ish way to deal
> >with most cases that would be nice.  For example:
> >
> >* PayflowPro requires auth info as part of %content
> >* Paypal does not allow this
> >* Authorize.Net needs login and transaction_key (at least for what I've
> >  done it does -- password seems not used or perhaps completely optional
> >  but it isn't the same as transaction_key)
> 
> I'd like to ACK this.  For various reasons it is really tough for our 
> application to have %processor options.  It would be ideal for me if you 
> could set all of the processor options later by method:
> 
> $tx->processor_opt(1);
> $tx->processor_opt(2);
> ...etc.
> 
> I'm not saying drop %processor_options, I'm saying that perhaps all 
> module should support both ways of interacting?

Doesn't this already work?  B:OP's new method seems to call build_subs 
for the %processor_options keys...

-- 
_ivan