[ic] Verifone IPCharge
bill at bottlenose-wine.com
Fri Mar 20 20:43:48 UTC 2009
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Mike Heins wrote:
> Quoting Richard Siddall (richard.siddall at elirion.net):
>> Mike Heins wrote:
>>> Remember too, that the very nature of Business::OnlinePayment means
>>> that you have the potential to be adding new parameters all the
>>> time, as you
>>> add payment modules. You have to pass them along somehow.
>> I'm aware of that. I believe Ivan Kohler was aware of it too when he
>> provided a way of passing additional parameters to the
>> Business::OnlinePayment constructor.
>>> Passing *all* of $opt along means a chance of conflict. So the
>>> extra parameters seems ideal to me. The alternative is hacking on
>>> the module code all the time, which seems non-optimal to me.
>> I don't see why you'd have to hack on the module code if you already
>> have a way of passing extra parameters. Adding a second way of
>> doing it
>> just bloats the code.
> Obviously you don't know the Interchange way. Bloat 'R us. 8-)
> You may be right, but maybe not. It could be that the current
> way of doing it is what should be removed.
> There is no way to remap or account for conflicting key names the way
> that is provided. If we are going to use this as a main payment
> method I
> think a little flexibility is required. All it would take is for one
> the payment modules to require "gateway" as a parameter, and it is
> broken. Doesn't sound like a good solution to me.
I'm going to weigh in on this but I'm trying to remember what got me
here. I know I was having a hard time getting some required parameters
from IC to IPCharge.
Bottlenose - Wine & Spirits eBusiness Specialists
More information about the interchange-users