Some win32::Internet questions

ldln has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I only just recently really noticed the Win32::Internet module, which hopefully can serve as replacement for the LWP-library. What I like about it is the possibility to setup "asynchronous" connection which will, as I understand it, work in similar ways as a multi threaded application with LWP. Also the footprint and appsize when used with perlapp from Activestate is microscopic when compared to LWP. Plus that I'm also a little feed up with the "timeout issue" problems that LWP seems to have sometimes.

Please don't get me wrong, I like LWP allot, its a terrific package, but I'm just interested in investigating possible alternatives.

I've searched the web, newsgroups and PM for more info on this module but it doesn't seem like anyone is using it?
Why?

Also I was wondering if anyone have gone the route of adding any cookie support for this module, or having any suggestion about how to do that, as well as proxy server support (with username/pw).

Also is it likely that this module will work on win9x (ugh) as well as xp/2000?

Comment on Some win32::Internet questions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Some win32::Internet questions by CountZero (Bishop) on May 27, 2006 at 07:14 UTC
I haven't used this module either, but I can guess that it is less popular since it will only work in Windows-environments (i.e. you need Internet Explorer for it to work as you are essentially using the IE-engine) and will suffer from all security risks of IE. CountZero "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law	[reply]
Re: Some win32::Internet questions by Marza (Vicar) on May 27, 2006 at 03:33 UTC
Haven't used the module myself. But as to the last two questions; have you asked the author? gsar@ActiveState.com	[reply]
Re: Some win32::Internet questions by jdtoronto (Prior) on May 28, 2006 at 17:03 UTC
I used Win32::Internet very briefly about 4 years ago, but never in production code. At what it does, it worked well. But the major shortcomings, as I recall, were the lack of support for SSL connections and cookies. jdtoronto	[reply]