Re: Use of POE within a module
I'd look here: http://search.cpan.org/dist/POE/ and Start with POE::Kernel and POE::Session The POD docs are the most recent. Cheers David Davis ☄ Software Engineer http://xant.us/ http://xantus.tel/ On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 19:38, howard chen wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:08 AM, David Davis > wrote: > > Replace 'main' with MyModule and remove MyModule from your function > names. > > > > You should also read the docs. > > > > Yes, but the POE doc are quite scatterred > (http://poe.perl.org/?POE_Documentation), and many are old works, so I > am not sure which one I should read. > > Any suggestions? >
Re: Use of POE within a module
Hello, On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:08 AM, David Davis wrote: > Replace 'main' with MyModule and remove MyModule from your function names. > > You should also read the docs. > Yes, but the POE doc are quite scatterred (http://poe.perl.org/?POE_Documentation), and many are old works, so I am not sure which one I should read. Any suggestions?
Re: Use of POE within a module
Replace 'main' with MyModule and remove MyModule from your function names.
You should also read the docs.
David Davis
☄ Software Engineer
http://xant.us/
http://xantus.tel/
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:00, howard chen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Most example put callback function as global, e.g.
>
>
> http://search.cpan.org/dist/POE-Component-Client-NNTP/lib/POE/Component/Client/NNTP.pm
>
> POE::Session->create(
>package_states => [
>'main' => { nntp_disconnected => '_shutdown',
>nntp_socketerr=> '_shutdown',
>nntp_421 => '_shutdown',
>nntp_200 => '_connected',
>nntp_201 => '_connected',
>},
>'main' => [ qw(_start nntp_211 nntp_220 nntp_223
> nntp_registered)
>],
>],
> );
>
>
>
> How about if the callback I want to call the fucntion inside a module?
>
> POE::Session->create(
>package_states => [
>'main' => {
>nntp_disconnected => 'MyModule::_shutdown',
>nntp_socketerr=> 'MyModule::_shutdown',
>nntp_421 => 'MyModule::_shutdown',
>nntp_200 => 'MyModule::_connected',
>nntp_201 => 'MyModule::_connected',
>},
>'main' => [
>qw(MyModule::_start MyModule::nntp_211
> MyModule::nntp_220
> MyModule::nntp_223 MyModule::nntp_registered)
>],
>],
>);
>
> Of cause the above one is not correct.
>
Re: Porting POE to Moose
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 10:58 -0400, Robert Landrum wrote: > Warranted or not, it seems to have been effective. Uh, in what way? because there's now sounds of other people looking at moose too? That's just a coincidence; people have been looking at using Moose and POE together for quite a while now (look at the release date for MooseX::POE for example) It also further proves that Mr. Carroll hasn't bothered to get/stay up-to-date on what is happening in the POE community. which makes his attempt at humour/trolling/whatever that was all the sadder. Martijn
Re: Porting POE to Moose
I, for one, found it humorous. But then, I instantly assume everyone is trolling. Too much fark, I suppose. I bet his approach got a lot more attention than a simple "Hey... check out Moose. It's like POE, only cleaner." Warranted or not, it seems to have been effective. Rob Rocco Caputo wrote: I gave Evan the benefit of the doubt when I asked him to post here despite his multi-year history of abuse in IRC. His project overlaps the efforts of at least two readers, and I had hoped an announcement would start some discussion between projects. I assumed the change of venue might prompt Evan to act more mature, as it has for others. Given the opportunity to compose a longer, more considered message, Evan has instead reached new depths of abrasion. Please forgive me for not sharing your optimism or sense of humor. He's always like this. It's tiresome, it's annoying, and he keeps defying expectations that he'll improve.
Re: Suggestions on which poe DBI module to use
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Brett Paden wrote: > The app the uses EasyDBI is running in production servers and shuffles > around 2TB of uploaded user data a day; I have ran into 0 problems. Same here. We've been running this in a daemon that processes very large volumes of data for a long time now and we have seen zero problems with this module. Thanks, Phil
Re: Suggestions on which poe DBI module to use
Andrew Feren wrote:
It's been a while since I looked at all of these. I have some code
using EasyDBI and other code using SimpleDBI.
Me too ... I settled on EasyDBI as well, but made that decision two ago
and don't specifically recall my exact reasoning :-). I do know that
EasyDBI met most of my requirements (would return data in arrays of
arrays, placeholder support, clean easy-to-understand interface). The
one place I ran into problems was with queries to show status on tables,
but a quick ping to the author fixed those errors immediately.
The app the uses EasyDBI is running in production servers and shuffles
around 2TB of uploaded user data a day; I have ran into 0 problems.
Initially EasyDBI was the only one I could get to work on both Linux
and Windows. As of version 1.27 SimpleDBI also works on both
platforms. EasyDBI seems to offer a few more specialized ways to get
data back ('single' for example), but you can get the same info with
either module. My very limited benchmarking of the two modules
yielded comparable results.
I haven't looked at LaDBI or DBIAgent in a long while so I can't
really comment other than to say that when I looked at them they
wouldn't run on Windows.
-Andrew
Josh803316 wrote:
I've read the cpan module docs and have looked at the cookbook example (
http://poe.perl.org/?POE_Cookbook/DBI_Helper_Processes). The following
modules all run non-blocking async dbi calls for poe but I'm not sure
which
I should choose. I would love to see a pro/con list for these or get
some
sort of guidance on which would work better in my network testing app.
I'm sure everyone has favourites out there, but is there any reason
to use
one over another in certain scenarios? Are there any drawbacks or
things to
watch out for on specific modules?
POE::Component::LaDBI
POE::Component::EasyDBI
POE::Component::DBIAgent
POE::Component::SimpleDBI
Use of POE within a module
Hello,
Most example put callback function as global, e.g.
http://search.cpan.org/dist/POE-Component-Client-NNTP/lib/POE/Component/Client/NNTP.pm
POE::Session->create(
package_states => [
'main' => { nntp_disconnected => '_shutdown',
nntp_socketerr=> '_shutdown',
nntp_421 => '_shutdown',
nntp_200 => '_connected',
nntp_201 => '_connected',
},
'main' => [ qw(_start nntp_211 nntp_220 nntp_223
nntp_registered)
],
],
);
How about if the callback I want to call the fucntion inside a module?
POE::Session->create(
package_states => [
'main' => {
nntp_disconnected => 'MyModule::_shutdown',
nntp_socketerr=> 'MyModule::_shutdown',
nntp_421 => 'MyModule::_shutdown',
nntp_200 => 'MyModule::_connected',
nntp_201 => 'MyModule::_connected',
},
'main' => [
qw(MyModule::_start MyModule::nntp_211
MyModule::nntp_220
MyModule::nntp_223 MyModule::nntp_registered)
],
],
);
Of cause the above one is not correct.
Re: Suggestions on which poe DBI module to use
Last night I remembered (at least partially) the one problem I had with
EasyDBI.
I had some minor problems when connecting to the DB
(http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=36693 and I think something
else that I can't find documented). I worked around it with an eval {
... }; if ($@) {... }
-Andrew
Andrew Feren wrote:
It's been a while since I looked at all of these. I have some code
using EasyDBI and other code using SimpleDBI.
Initially EasyDBI was the only one I could get to work on both Linux
and Windows. As of version 1.27 SimpleDBI also works on both
platforms. EasyDBI seems to offer a few more specialized ways to get
data back ('single' for example), but you can get the same info with
either module. My very limited benchmarking of the two modules
yielded comparable results.
I haven't looked at LaDBI or DBIAgent in a long while so I can't
really comment other than to say that when I looked at them they
wouldn't run on Windows.
-Andrew
Josh803316 wrote:
I've read the cpan module docs and have looked at the cookbook example (
http://poe.perl.org/?POE_Cookbook/DBI_Helper_Processes). The following
modules all run non-blocking async dbi calls for poe but I'm not sure
which
I should choose. I would love to see a pro/con list for these or get
some
sort of guidance on which would work better in my network testing app.
I'm sure everyone has favourites out there, but is there any reason
to use
one over another in certain scenarios? Are there any drawbacks or
things to
watch out for on specific modules?
POE::Component::LaDBI
POE::Component::EasyDBI
POE::Component::DBIAgent
POE::Component::SimpleDBI
Re: Suggestions on which poe DBI module to use
I've only read through the code so far, but here are a couple of thoughts.
I thought '' should be specified for unused EasyDBI aliases rather than
'not_used'. Although I like the self documenting nature of 'not_used'.
This seems straight forward enough and looks like what you advertised.
I wonder how much harder it would be to turn this inside out. Have 1..n
EasyDBI::SubProcces rather than 1..n EasyDBI? Seems like it could avoid
an extra trip through the kernel for each request. Maybe not a big
deal. Just thinking out loud.
Only tangentially related to this, but something else I'd like is a DB
response event only on error. At least 98% of my current app is
inserts. For most of those I am happy to assume they succeeded unless I
get an error.
I'll play with this a bit later,
-Andrew
Phil Whelan wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:32 PM, David Davis wrote:
I'd like to take a look at PoCo-EasyDBI-Multiplex.
Btw, I'm the EasyDBI author, so you can direct any questions about it to the
list.
David Davis
Cool. Here it is.
$ cat POE-Component-EasyDBI-Multiplex/lib/POE/Component/EasyDBI/Multiplex.pm
package POE::Component::EasyDBI::Multiplex;
use strict;
use constant DEBUG => $ENV{DEBUG_EASYDBI_POOL};
use constant SQL_QUERY_TIMES_LOGFILE => $ENV{SQL_QUERY_TIMES_LOGFILE};
use constant SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE => $ENV{SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE};
use constant DEFAULT_POOL_SIZE => 1;
use constant GET_QUEUE_SIZE_TIMEOUT => 60;
use POE::Kernel;
use POE::Session;
use POE::Component::EasyDBI;
use Time::HiRes ();
use FileHandle;
my $query_time_log_fh;
my $sql_queue_size_log_fh;
my $previous_sql_req_queue_size = 0;
my $previous_dbi_writers_available = 0;
END {
if ( SQL_QUERY_TIMES_LOGFILE ) {
close $query_time_log_fh
if $query_time_log_fh;
}
if ( SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE ) {
close $sql_queue_size_log_fh
if $sql_queue_size_log_fh;
}
}
sub spawn {
my ($package, %dbi_params) = @_;
# open file here, so the file handle isn't closed when spawning occurs
_open_query_time_log_fh()
if SQL_QUERY_TIMES_LOGFILE;
_open_sql_queue_size_log_fh()
if SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE;
POE::Session->create(
inline_states => {
_start=> \&_start,
queue_sql_req => \&_queue_sql_req,
do=> \&_queue_sql_req,
arrayhash => \&_queue_sql_req,
single=> \&_queue_sql_req,
hash => \&_queue_sql_req,
process_sql_req_queue => \&_process_sql_req_queue,
db_response => \&_db_response,
sql_req_queue_size=> sub { scalar @{
$_[HEAP]->{sql_req_queue} } },
dbi_writers_available => sub { scalar @{
$_[HEAP]->{dbi_writers} } },
timeout => \&_timeout,
shutdown => \&_shutdown,
},
heap => {
dbi_params => \%dbi_params,
poolsize => delete $dbi_params{poolsize} || DEFAULT_POOL_SIZE,
dbi_writers=> [],
sql_req_queue => [],
},
options => {
trace => DEBUG,
},
);
}
sub _open_query_time_log_fh {
if ( SQL_QUERY_TIMES_LOGFILE ) {
$query_time_log_fh = new FileHandle;
open $query_time_log_fh, ">>".SQL_QUERY_TIMES_LOGFILE
or die "Cannot write to sql query time log file :
".SQL_QUERY_TIMES_LOGFILE;
}
}
sub _open_sql_queue_size_log_fh {
if ( SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE ) {
$sql_queue_size_log_fh = new FileHandle;
open $sql_queue_size_log_fh, ">>".SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE
or die "Cannot write to sql queue size log file :
".SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE;
$sql_queue_size_log_fh->autoflush();
}
}
sub _start {
my $heap = $_[HEAP];
# Set an alias for the current session
$_[KERNEL]->alias_set( delete $heap->{dbi_params}->{alias} )
if $heap->{dbi_params}->{alias};
# create a Pool consisting of a configurable number of DBIWriter's
for ( 1 .. $heap->{poolsize} ) {
push @{ $heap->{dbi_writers} },
POE::Component::EasyDBI->spawn(
%{ $heap->{dbi_params} },
alias => 'not_used',
)->ID;
}
if (SQL_QUEUE_SIZE_LOGFILE && $sql_queue_size_log_fh) {
POE::Kernel->delay('timeout', GET_QUEUE_SIZE_TIMEOUT);
}
}
sub _shutdown {
my $heap = $_[HEAP];
while ( my $dbi_writer = pop @{ $heap->{dbi_writers} } ) {
POE::Kernel->call( $dbi_writer, "shutdown" );
}
}
sub _queue_sql_req {
my ($heap, $sql_req) = @_[HEAP,ARG0];
$sql_req->{_return_session_id} = $_[SENDER]->ID;
$sql_req->{_return_event} = delete $sql_req->{event},
$sql_req->{_state} = $_[STATE];
$sql_req->{_sql_start_time}= Time::HiRes::time();
push @{ $_[HEAP]->{sql_req_queue} }, $sql_req;
POE + Moose
So I had some expectations out of EC's effort, but doesn't look like the path being taken is one I necessarily want to follow. But it did give me some ideas on integrating POE and Moose. So I spent some time looking through various POE::Session implementations: strengths, weaknesses, and raw ideas. I really like Philip Gwyn's ideas on rolling up the POE stuff (KERNEL, SESSION, CALLER, etc) into a per-event object (POE::Session::PlainCall), for example. I also took some time to look at Chris Prather's efforts, which are very notable in that he appears to be wrapping POE::Session wholesale. But it seems to me that perhaps if a POE::Session implementation were actually a Moose::Role, we could all get succinctness we want, plus the mutability we need to redefine events at will. Apply the Role to any object to get an instant session. That said, I've started writing a simple POE::Session implementation (POE::Session::Moose: http://github.com/nperez/psm/tree/master). -- Nicholas Perez XMPP/Email: n...@nickandperla.net http://search.cpan.org/~nperez/ http://github.com/nperez
