Re: Using callbacks with POE::Component::Client::UserAgent

2004-02-06 Thread Rocco Caputo
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:15:44AM +, James Brown wrote: Hi All, I'm new to POE (although I've asked for your help before) and am trying to build a talking web browser for blind users (University final year project). Basically, I would really appreciate some advice on using POE and

Re: Using callbacks with POE::Component::Client::UserAgent

2004-02-06 Thread Rocco Caputo
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 04:39:24PM +, James Brown wrote: Do you know whether POE::Component::Client::HTTP can support basic authentication for a realm? I couldn't see any mention of it on the CPAN documentation. I will try to go with this module (HTTP is all I needed anyway) but I might

PerlApp compile problems

2004-02-06 Thread Phillips Thomas E Contr AFMC/ITON
I am trying to compile a script with PerlApp to be freestanding and have run into a problem. I have implemented the steps listed in Poe:Preprocessor section PERLAPP AND PERL2EXE SUPPORT. The compiled script produces the following errors upon execution: Global symbol %use_bytes requires

Re: RFC: 1.0 and the end of official 5.6.1 support

2004-02-06 Thread Chris Fedde
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:38:24 -0500 sungo wrote: +-- | So, there are my thoughts. I would like comments, thoughts, | suggestions, etc etc. Silence is assumed assent. So speak up if you have | objections, concerns, etc. +-- 1.0 is a line in the sand. To some

Re: RFC: 1.0 and the end of official 5.6.1 support

2004-02-06 Thread sungo
On (02/06 21:31), Chris Fedde wrote: 1.0 is a line in the sand. To some it implies a commitment to interface. To others it means yet another buggy .0 release. If my opinion matters at all I'd say hit 0.5 and 0.8 before jumping to 1.0. Then move quickly to 1.1. so you're against lines? or

Re: RFC: 1.0 and the end of official 5.6.1 support

2004-02-06 Thread Scott Beck
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 20:31, Chris Fedde wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:38:24 -0500 sungo wrote: +-- | So, there are my thoughts. I would like comments, thoughts, | suggestions, etc etc. Silence is assumed assent. So speak up if you have | objections, concerns, etc.

Re: Test Reforms

2004-02-06 Thread sungo
On (02/04 04:14), Rocco Caputo wrote: Thanks for the reply. http://poe.perl.org/?POE_RFCs/Test_Reforms has been harshly (and incompletely, but it's like 03:00 here) revised based so, we've gone from our current test suite which is not complete but workable to a proposed test suite which

Re: RFC: 1.0 and the end of official 5.6.1 support

2004-02-06 Thread Chris Fedde
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 23:33:38 -0500 sungo wrote: +-- | so you're against lines? or sand? :) | | so you're saying to make the jump to 0.5 so our arbitrary version jump | doesnt mean anything else to anyone? or what? kinda confused as to what | jumping to 0.5 would get us that

Re: RFC: 1.0 and the end of official 5.6.1 support

2004-02-06 Thread Tim Wood
At 08:47 PM 02/06/04, Scott Beck wrote: To me a version number is nothing more than a loose representation of where the author thinks the code is in terms of stability and the only rule for versions is it must be changed from release to release. Just MHO. Good point. I'd like to hear from the

Re: RFC: 1.0 and the end of official 5.6.1 support

2004-02-06 Thread Scott Beck
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 18:38, sungo wrote: Drop support for any perl versions earlier than 5.6.1. dropping support for =5.8.2 is O.K. with me :) -- Scott Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gossamer Threads