in reply to Re: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't
in thread A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't

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.
  • Comment on Re^2: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]
      Read the original post which shows the Mechanize program works while the LWP program doesn't.
[reply]

        You seem to be opposed to solving your problem, which stems from differences between what WWW::Mechanize sends and what LWP::UserAgent sends.

        It can't be a "bad One-Off" of LWP, because both of your programs ultimately rely on LWP. WWW::Mechanize presents a more browser-like API+state for LWP::UserAgent, so things likely are different between using WWW::Mechanize and LWP::UserAgent.

        But as you don't seem too interested in finding the differences, and also don't seem too interested in finding out how WWW::Mechanize works, I wonder what part of your question I'm missing. Maybe you can rephrase your question to help us help you better?

[reply]
        I know. You said LWP is difficult, yet you showed it work via subclass WWW::Mechanize. It's probably just one line that's missing to handle cookies, but you've ignored the request for the information that would confirm that or find the actual problem.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom