Re: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by Anonymous Monk on Feb 09, 2010 at 20:19 UTC
Sigh. I figured I made a typo or forgot a call. Yep loaded wireshark. I guess LWP isn't as straight forward as I thought. Is LWP normally this difficult or is this just a bad one-off. I cannot imagine debugging a large program via sniffer traces.	[reply]
Re^3: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 09, 2010 at 21:38 UTC
WWW::Mechanize uses LWP, so your question makes no sense.	[reply]
Re^4: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by dneedles (Sexton) on Feb 10, 2010 at 14:57 UTC
Read the original post which shows the Mechanize program works while the LWP program doesn't.	[reply]
Re^5: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by Corion (Patriarch) on Feb 10, 2010 at 15:06 UTC
Re^6: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by dneedles (Sexton) on Feb 10, 2010 at 20:01 UTC
Re^5: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 10, 2010 at 21:24 UTC
Re^6: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by dneedles (Sexton) on Feb 11, 2010 at 03:18 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^2: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by dneedles (Sexton) on Feb 10, 2010 at 16:12 UTC
Ok. Interesting results on the Sniffer trace. It appears Mechanize is handling a redirect while LWP is not. Also the encapsulation of the POST on Mechanize is application/x-www-form-urlencoded while LWP just has variable: value in separate lines. So it appears Mechanize is doing much more work under the covers. I'll see how I can manipulate LWP to mimic Mechanize.	[reply]
Re^3: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by Corion (Patriarch) on Feb 10, 2010 at 16:33 UTC
Why don't you just use WWW::Mechanize? It's based on LWP, so basically to make LWP::UserAgent behave like WWW::Mechanize means just taking the code of WWW::Mechanize.	[reply]
Re^4: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by dneedles (Sexton) on Feb 10, 2010 at 19:56 UTC
Great questions. The reason is two fold. 1. Limit change. The existing PERL installation doesn't use Mechanize and I would rather not introduce it primarily to keep the politics under control. 2. POE integration. I have seen much on LWP and POE but nothing on Mechanize and POE. I'd rather go with a more proven route. Correct me if I am wrong (with a URL, ISDN or other tangible reference) especially on #2	[reply]
Re^5: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by Corion (Patriarch) on Feb 10, 2010 at 20:11 UTC
Re^6: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by dneedles (Sexton) on Feb 10, 2010 at 20:36 UTC
Re^5: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by ambrus (Abbot) on Feb 12, 2010 at 20:31 UTC
Re^4: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't by dneedles (Sexton) on Feb 11, 2010 at 13:51 UTC
Actually found out this isn't the case. Mechanize has blocking calls. POE is more a cooperative scheduler along the lines of what Windows 3.1 was. So POE won't work well with Mechanize like it will with LWP. So I am back to using the sniffer to figure out how to code LWP with enough of Mechanize so the pages will return.	[reply]