Thanks to Perrin's suggestion (read: clue brick), things
are much happier now. Going around the problem is just as
good as fixing it, I suppose.
I'm still curious about that behavior, though.
cheers,
Todd
At 04:22 AM 1/19/01, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>Todd Finney wrote:
> > The one-sentence version of my question is: Is there a
> > problem with tying a session twice during two different
> > HeaderParserHandlers, as long as your doing the
> standard
> > cleanup stuff (untie &| make_modified) in each?
>
>It seems like the answer should be no unless there's some
>kind of bug,
>but I don't understand why you're doing it this way. Why
>don't you just
>put a reference to the %session hash in pnotes and use it
>in the second
>handler, instead of putting the ID in and re-creating
>it? That should
>be considerably more efficient.
>- Perrin
