Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #29933 > unrolled thread

Difference between client and server side cookie

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Difference between client and server side cookie bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-03-12 05:38 -0800
    Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-12 15:02 +0100
    Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 16:19 +0100
      Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-12 23:32 +0100
        Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-12 20:23 -0300
          Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-13 10:48 +0100
            Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-13 10:42 +0000
              Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-13 12:05 +0100
                Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-13 11:46 +0000
              Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 13:46 +0100
                Re: Difference between client and server side cookie bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-03-13 07:07 -0700
                  Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 16:34 +0100
                Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-13 23:42 +0000
                  Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 01:54 +0100
                    Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 10:36 +0100
                  Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-14 11:43 +0100
                    Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-14 10:21 -0300
                      Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-14 15:01 +0100
                        Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-14 11:52 -0300
                          Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-14 17:06 +0100
                            Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-14 13:17 -0300
                              Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-14 19:43 +0100
                                Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-14 16:17 -0300
                                  Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-14 23:22 +0100
                                    Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-14 19:38 -0300
                                      Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-14 23:44 +0100
                                        Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-14 21:49 -0300
                                          Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-15 10:18 +0100
                                            Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-15 11:39 -0300
                    Re: Difference between client and server side cookie John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:40 +0000
                      Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-15 12:08 +0100
                        Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:22 +0100
                          Re: Difference between client and server side cookie "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-15 15:53 +0100
            Re: Difference between client and server side cookie Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-13 13:51 -0300
      Re: Difference between client and server side cookie bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-03-13 07:09 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#29986

On 14/03/16 13:06, Evertjan. wrote:
> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>>>> Your eyes are organ that exist inside your skull and let you see. If I
>>>> take them off with a spoon, they cease being eyes because they are
>>>> outside now and you can't see anymore?
>>>
>>> Nonsense, eyes don't store data, dead eyes even less than not.
>>>
>>> A cookie is a data-container, 
>>> an instance of preserving such data,
>>> not the data itself.
>>
>> Well, they have been contained in plain text,
> 
> So?
> 
>> now some browsers use
>> SQLite. Isn't the term affected by what contains them?
> 
> No. 

But you said it's a data container, if the container is not defined by
the underlying containment system, what is it then?

> They "exist" because they are "stored" not because of "how" they are stored.
> 
>> Isn't in-transit data still contained anyway?
> 
> Not a valid argument, containment has nothing to do with it, otherwise they 
> could exist when still in the mind of the programmer. 

Actually yes, the cookie would exist in my head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29987

Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

>>> now some browsers use
>>> SQLite. Isn't the term affected by what contains them?
>> 
>> No. 
> 
> But you said it's a data container,

I did not say that, the cookie only exists with his data,
like a glass of water is not defined by its glass.

However, here I do not say a cookie is a glass of water, it is just to 
explain it to you.

A cookie is a key/data-pair as stored in browser-memory.

> if the container is not defined by
> the underlying containment system, what is it then?

It is not defined as a container.

A cookie is a key/data-pair as stored in browser-memory.

>> They "exist" because they are "stored" not because of "how" they are
>> stored. 
>> 
>>> Isn't in-transit data still contained anyway?
>> 
>> Not a valid argument, containment has nothing to do with it, otherwise
>> they could exist when still in the mind of the programmer. 
> 
> Actually yes, the cookie would exist in my head.

Silly you, you must be rather adipose indeed. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29989

On 14/03/16 15:43, Evertjan. wrote:
> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in
> comp.lang.javascript: 
> 
>>>> now some browsers use
>>>> SQLite. Isn't the term affected by what contains them?
>>>
>>> No. 
>>
>> But you said it's a data container,
> 
> I did not say that, the cookie only exists with his data,
> like a glass of water is not defined by its glass.
> 
> However, here I do not say a cookie is a glass of water, it is just to 
> explain it to you.

NonNonsense, water glasses don't store data. (As you just said earlier)

> A cookie is a key/data-pair as stored in browser-memory.
> 
>> if the container is not defined by
>> the underlying containment system, what is it then?
> 
> It is not defined as a container.
> 
> A cookie is a key/data-pair as stored in browser-memory.

And an eye is still called an eye if stored outside your skull. (I say
so since you apparently made analogies valid again)

>>> They "exist" because they are "stored" not because of "how" they are
>>> stored. 
>>>
>>>> Isn't in-transit data still contained anyway?
>>>
>>> Not a valid argument, containment has nothing to do with it, otherwise
>>> they could exist when still in the mind of the programmer. 
>>
>> Actually yes, the cookie would exist in my head.
> 
> Silly you, you must be rather adipose indeed.

Name calling and personal attacks are a symptom of either the argument
store is about to run out of arguments or that it's been depleted
already. ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29990

Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:

>>> Actually yes, the cookie would exist in my head.
>> 
>> Silly you, you must be rather adipose indeed.
> 
> Name calling and personal attacks are a symptom of either the argument
> store is about to run out of arguments or that it's been depleted
> already. ;)

That is no name-calling, 
it is you that thinks he has cookies in his head,
I hope for you they autodestroy when the session ends.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29991

On 14/03/16 19:22, Evertjan. wrote:
> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>>>> Actually yes, the cookie would exist in my head.
>>>
>>> Silly you, you must be rather adipose indeed.
>>
>> Name calling and personal attacks are a symptom of either the argument
>> store is about to run out of arguments or that it's been depleted
>> already. ;)
> 
> That is no name-calling, 
> it is you that thinks he has cookies in his head,
> I hope for you they autodestroy when the session ends.

They don't, they will remain after tonight's sleep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29992

Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> That is no name-calling, 
>> it is you that thinks he has cookies in his head,
>> I hope for you they autodestroy when the session ends.
> 
> They don't, they will remain after tonight's sleep.

I had hoped they would not be persistent cookies,
that keep haunting you.

Maybe they are sugar-coated?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29993

On 14/03/16 19:44, Evertjan. wrote:
> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>>> That is no name-calling, 
>>> it is you that thinks he has cookies in his head,
>>> I hope for you they autodestroy when the session ends.
>>
>> They don't, they will remain after tonight's sleep.
> 
> I had hoped they would not be persistent cookies,
> that keep haunting you.
> 
> Maybe they are sugar-coated?

No I only have saccharin.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29996

Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 15 Mar 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On 14/03/16 19:44, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in
>> comp.lang.javascript: 
>> 
>>>> That is no name-calling, 
>>>> it is you that thinks he has cookies in his head,
>>>> I hope for you they autodestroy when the session ends.
>>>
>>> They don't, they will remain after tonight's sleep.
>> 
>> I had hoped they would not be persistent cookies,
>> that keep haunting you.
>> 
>> Maybe they are sugar-coated?
> 
> No I only have saccharin.

Seems a nobrainer:

"... has a bitter or metallic aftertaste, especially at high concentrations. 
... is used to sweeten products such as drinks, candies, ***cookies***, 
medicines, and toothpaste."


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30003

On 15/03/16 06:18, Evertjan. wrote:
> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 15 Mar 2016 in
> comp.lang.javascript: 
> 
>> On 14/03/16 19:44, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 14 Mar 2016 in
>>> comp.lang.javascript: 
>>>
>>>>> That is no name-calling, 
>>>>> it is you that thinks he has cookies in his head,
>>>>> I hope for you they autodestroy when the session ends.
>>>>
>>>> They don't, they will remain after tonight's sleep.
>>>
>>> I had hoped they would not be persistent cookies,
>>> that keep haunting you.
>>>
>>> Maybe they are sugar-coated?
>>
>> No I only have saccharin.
> 
> Seems a nobrainer:
> 
> "... has a bitter or metallic aftertaste, especially at high concentrations. 
> ... is used to sweeten products such as drinks, candies, ***cookies***, 
> medicines, and toothpaste."

That's sucralose in my case, I avoid it like a pest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29998

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:43:41 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

  <snip>
>No, I reason that only the content [key/value/expiration-info] of a cookie 
>travels with of in response to commands, but that the cookie "is" what is 
>stored in browser-memory. 
  <snip>

Do you buy a book, or only a copy of the book's contents? Do you buy a
book when you buy an e-book?

Remember that the English language can be very perverse. There are no
rules and no definitions that cannot be ignored if that's what people
want.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30000

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 15 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Remember that the English language can be very perverse. There are no
> rules and no definitions that cannot be ignored if that's what people
> want.

No, I don't want to remember that, it is not perversly persuative.

This is NOT about English, but about a programming language, 
and the words used there should be exact, 
at least for the forseeable future. 

That English words are [sometimes] used is incidental,
a programming language using Latin words would be a treat, btw.

That American spelling sometimes slips in, 
like in CSS "color" and "center", is less than honourable[!],
but looses its importance when seen as just a programming word.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30002

On 03/15/2016 12:08, Evertjan. wrote:
> This is NOT about English, but about a programming language, 
> and the words used there should be exact, 

Since the last 28 posts in this thread were nothing more than quibbling
about what exactly cookie names/values in transit should be called, I
have to disagree here.

It was completely clear from the start what the OP was referring to, and
(I think) my reply was equally clear. The nomenclature discussion added
nothing of value. In my opinion, we should try to be as exact as
necessary to avoid ambiguity and misunderstandings. A higher standard
may be required for technical specifications and scientific papers, but
in conversations and informal discussions, insisting on exactness only
increases the noise level (see this thread or the bazillion others about
"Javascript").

Does it really matter that much to you?


> a programming language using Latin words would be a treat, btw.

Got a treat for you:

  use Lingua::Romana::Perligata;

  adnota Illud Cribrum Eratothenis

  maximum tum val inquementum tum biguttam tum stadium egresso scribe.
  vestibulo perlegementum da meo maximo.
  maximum tum novumversum egresso scribe.
  da II tum maximum conscribementa meis listis.
  dum damentum nexto listis decapitamentum fac sic
        lista sic hoc tum nextum recidementum cis vannementa da listis.
        next tum biguttam tum stadium tum nextum tum novumversum
              scribe egresso.
  cis

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/HTML/Perligata.html


> That American spelling sometimes slips in, 
> like in CSS "color" and "center", is less than honourable[!],
> but looses its importance when seen as just a programming word.

So... is "looses" more or less honorable than the British and American
spellings? Or was that some oblique archery joke that flew over my head?

| Bell's First Law of USENET: Flames of spelling and/or grammar will
| have spelling and/or grammatical errors.


- stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30004

Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> wrote on 15 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 03/15/2016 12:08, Evertjan. wrote:
>> This is NOT about English, but about a programming language, 
>> and the words used there should be exact, 
> 
> Since the last 28 posts in this thread were nothing more than quibbling
> about what exactly cookie names/values in transit should be called, I
> have to disagree here.

Nonsense, you don't have to, it is just an urge.

A cookie is a stored key/value pair.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29966

On 13/03/16 06:48, Evertjan. wrote:
> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 13 Mar 2016 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>> On 12/03/16 19:32, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> wrote on 12 Mar 2016 in 
>>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>
>>>> Normally, there is no difference. You can read and set cookies on the
>>>> server and on the client (with JS).
>>>
>>> There are no cookies "on the server".
>>
>> There are while I am taking care of a request that sent them.
> 
> Take care, that is nonsense.
> 
> I even don't understand your sentense.

You don't know what it is to take care of something? D:

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29962

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:50:04 PM UTC+5:30, Stefan Weiss wrote:

> Note that the client was unable to see or modify the value of the "two"
> cookie because it was protected by the HttpOnly flag.
 

Aah thanks, I did not know about that flag!
I'm reading a book called "HTTP" which dates back quite a way, and it didn't cover this :(  I wonder when it will be updated.....

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web