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

[Jo Rhett]

Ivan Kohler wrote:
> 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...

Not consistently for all gateways I'm testing, no.

And it's certainly not documented as such.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Network/Software Engineer
Net Consonance