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] |
Ah I must have not been clear or missed an earlier post - so thanks for the persistence! I am VERY interested in the differences between LWP and Mechanize. Is there a write up somewhere comparing the two (beyond the perldoc?) I would greatly appreciate it! Also are there examples of using Mechanize with POE? I only found several LWP examples via articles and the online POE cookbook.
| [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] |
It wasn't intentionally ignored. Could you point to what I missed or reiterate the question and I will gladly provide that info?
| [reply] |