* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:02:43 +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following bits through the ether:
> >
> > > Here's what I use, which probably isn't what most people would think
> > > of when they hear "XML parser"
> >
> > In
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:02:43 +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following bits through the ether:
>
> > Here's what I use, which probably isn't what most people would think
> > of when they hear "XML parser"
>
> Indeed. This is because it doesn't parse XML.
Alright then, go
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following bits through the ether:
> Here's what I use, which probably isn't what most people would think
> of when they hear "XML parser"
Indeed. This is because it doesn't parse XML.
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
yapc::Europ
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:37:38 -0800, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > sure it makes sense, but it still is CiP and trust me this isn't
> > the only bit of CiP in here and much kudos to Paul for it ;-)
>
> I'm unsure what CiP is, but if it has anything to do with gnarliness,
> I
Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > That dropped my jaw.
>
> Is it available online?
You'd have to talk to him, I don't know. He said it had reasonably
good performance, too, which surprised him. It definitely sounds like
uncut CiP to me :-)
Nat
* Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > sure it makes sense, but it still is CiP and trust me this isn't
> > the only bit of CiP in here and much kudos to Paul for it ;-)
>
> I'm unsure what CiP is, but if it has anything to do with gnarliness,
CiP = Crack indu
Greg McCarroll wrote:
> sure it makes sense, but it still is CiP and trust me this isn't
> the only bit of CiP in here and much kudos to Paul for it ;-)
I'm unsure what CiP is, but if it has anything to do with gnarliness,
I know that Paul wrote a >1k regexp to parse XML correctly. It only
fails
* Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Simon Wistow wrote:
>
> > You use the RPC::Automagic module and pass it a RPC server/port/user
> > name/password/whatever. From that point on it overloads the use keyword
> > and anything you try and use it will actually connect to the RPC server
>
Simon Wistow wrote:
> You use the RPC::Automagic module and pass it a RPC server/port/user
> name/password/whatever. From that point on it overloads the use keyword
> and anything you try and use it will actually connect to the RPC server
> and pass it all the parameters. Any modules you didn't w
Code I wrote to do most of what you people are talking about a couple of
weeks back, loading over ssh.
This does not work for non-pure perl code. i.e. XS is a no-no
The idea I was using it for:
a) User presses a button in the web browser
b) Downloads .config.html from that directory the site
Is the intention simply that it be possible to use modules
which aren't available locally?
If so, you could do something like:
- use request is passed to module server
- module server "require"s module (will do nothing if it's already
been required. That's a good thing)
- server serialise
Robin Houston wrote:
> A stateful server would definitely help here.
It was going to be a stateful server. But stateless could be an option.
Greg McCarroll wrote:
> # locally an rpc call is made to the remote package server, which creates
> # an object and returns the local id to the other machine
That was the way I was thinking of doing it as well.
Hmm, nother thing to add to the list of things to do.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:31:36PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
>
> You use the RPC::Automagic module and pass it a RPC server/port/user
> name/password/whatever. From that point on it overloads the use keyword
> and anything you try and use it will actually connect to the RPC server
> and pass it
14 matches
Mail list logo
