On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 08:32:12AM +0100, Bas A.Schulte wrote: > > On Friday, March 22, 2002, at 05:14 PM, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > >> every time i look at poe my head spins and i am reminded > >> exactly how much of a novice i really am. > > > > I had this problem too, until I figured out that it's just terminology > > that was confusing me. That's why I'm giving a POE tutorial at the perl > > conference this year to help clear up some of this confusion. > > Conceptually > > POE is actually really simple, once you get past the documentation ;-) > > Ok, that is good to hear. I always thought I was too ignorant too > understand it ;) I suppose POE indeed uses a somewhat strange > terminology (wheels?).
yes. but i think that some "strange" terms were chosen so that the proper terms can be used for the real things (like session vs. object, the object layer is still missing). > But isn't it a point of p5ee to normalize/standardize the terminology? > In that respect, would it be possible to use POE at a lower level > underneath an API(s) that is more in line with p5ee, terminoloy-wise? I > don't understand enough of it to assess that. > > A thought: would it be possible to somehow use POE as a container in > which Wombat runs? Though Wombat is intended to run servlets in it might > be generalized to run general handlers that are run upon receipt of a > request with the addition of timers etc.. you could use poe as an implementation that provides such containers. constraints and behaviour of these should be described in more detail, and in a rather abstract way. > On the other hand, POE is about cooperative multitasking I believe which > might not be such a good base to start with... In fact it is about event(message) passing and handling. Because of that it works well with single-threaded as well as (multi-threaded/process) apps. Perl threading isnt stable yet or not widely in use because people think it isnt. But you can use processes too, take a look at IKC to see an approach. torvald
