James Edward Gray II wrote: > On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 05:37 PM, david wrote: > >> bug, more efficient, more portable, etc. who knows maybe James' module >> is >> more efficient than the already exist CPAN module, maybe it's more >> portable, maybe it's easier to use, maybe it has less or no bug, so >> even >> there already exists another module doing pretty much the same thing, >> it >> should benefit the others. > > I can say that I feel my module is efficient, though I don't have much > of a base of comparison. I wrote a tester script that connected to and > echo server I built off of my module and talked as fast as it could, > verifying that it's returned info was what was going out. My script > kept up with 50 of those connections scattered around the net on other > computers and was still perfectly responsive to my commands. > > I can also say that it's interface is significantly different from > IO::NonBlocking at least. You have to subclass IO::NonBlocking to > create your server. You just create an instance of my class and work > the method calls on that object into your server, or even set callbacks > and just wait for the data to roll in. > > James
sounds like something that should be useful :-) test it, package it and release it. Michael Fowler has a point and as i said before, it doesn't make sense to release something really "silly" (but how do you define silly :-) to CPAN as this will certainly "pollute" it. but a module exists not only because it can do something but also because it might do something better. many modules in CPAN might have overlap functionalities but they might be designed with different goal in mind. for example, one module might be designed to be fast but consumes a lot of memory. another moudle might be designed to be efficient in terms of memory usage but is not as fast as the other. and yet another might be designed to just have a good interface but not running as fast as the others. they exists to serve depends on each user's unique requirments. some modules are efficient but they are coded toward a particular platform. some modules are designed to have portability in mind. they might as well do the same thing but they all earn their place in CPAN. i don't neccessart consider them to be a dup of another just because they do something similar. david -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
