On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 21:31, Rocco Caputo wrote: > So someone unclear on the $_[KERNEL] concept needed some help with it > on IRC. They wanted to call a function that set a delay in the > current session, but they didn't understand that $_[KERNEL] is a > reference to an object (a singleton) and didn't magically appear in > called subroutines. >
This seems like a very poor reason to make such a radical change. It would break so much of my code, I would rather fork POE (for my personal and professional use) than to change all the code. BTW, this is not a threat or anthing like that. I mean I would just stay with the last version of POE with $_[KERNEL]. > 4. I've always been aesthetically displeased by the idea that some > of POE's runtime context might come from somewhere other than the > handler parameters. I aggree with this reasoning for having $_[KERNEL] Given that there may be a day when Perl's threading isn't brain dead and useless, we may have a need to have multiple "kernel" objects running. That means that POE event handlers need to know the "kernel" context it is running in. There are other things in POE design which would be much more profitable to discuss. For instance, making semantic distinctions between POE::Session APIs and POE::Kernel APIs (ala $session->invoke() vs $kernel->invoke()). My 2cents, -Sean.
