Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunnix Perl Web Server - a platform for portable browser-based applications

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunnix Perl Web Server - a platform for portable browser-based applications by jepri (Parson) on May 22, 2004 at 22:15 UTC
In my code, the network handling routines were pretty small. And I used shared hashes for passing paramters and data (but I could serialise them so an application's state would persist across restarts of the server - oh for first-class closures). POE would work as well as any other server daemon. It's a matter of what you're comfortable with. Having played with writing a fair bit of GUI stuff, I've found that most of the work is in stupid, boring bookeeping - implementing Widget::Button, Widget::RadioButton, Widget::CheckButton, etc. Even with OO and using inheritence and eval tricks, it's still repetitive. ____________________ Jeremy I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunnix Perl Web Server - a platform for portable browser-based applications by Anonymous Monk on May 24, 2004 at 05:15 UTC
POE is bad for several reasons: It's huge and requires too many additional modules. It doesn't work on perl-5.004. It's rather slow. Ours transfers static pages 2 times faster. It doesn't have framework for handling several http requests to dynamic content simultaneously (entire slave/master framework would have to be written to support it). In fact, implementing functionality we would need from POE (effectively - nice wrapper for select(2) with callbacks) is about 6% of all code size of SPWS.	[reply]