Hi Folks,
I've been getting quite interested in web sockets recently and trying
out a few examples.
http://showmetheco.de/articles/2010/11/timtow-to-build-a-websocket-server-in-perl.html
Anyone given thought to this in CGI:App ?
cheers,
mike
# CGI::Application community mailing list
Hi Matthias,
Sorry I didn't reply sooner; I've been away from the list for a while;
coincidentally, it was working on exactly this topic that got in the way of
me seeing your message :o) I'm hoping that when I'm finished I'll be
allowed to release the code on CPAN so that this is much more
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:17:09AM +, Mike Tonks wrote:
Hi Folks,
I've been getting quite interested in web sockets recently and trying
out a few examples.
http://showmetheco.de/articles/2010/11/timtow-to-build-a-websocket-server-in-perl.html
Anyone given thought to this in CGI:App
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:08:24PM +, Larig Tech wrote:
You've prompted me to jot down some quick notes at
http://larig.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/separating-per-application-init-from-per-request-init-in-cgiapplication/
Hi,
class storage is a good idea (that's why inside-out objects use it
that's what you get from coding straight into your mailer...
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:08:10PM +0100, Matthias Ferdinand wrote:
# in C:A:Capsule
sub cgiapp_postrun {
my $self = shift;
my $app = $self-{_APP_OBJECT};
# invoke MyApp teardown
return
I like half your idea and hate the other half :o)
I like the idea of using a persistent object to overcome deficiencies in
plug-ins. That's easy with a singleton object in MyApp::Base class data
blessed into C::A. I like the idea of separating your application logic
from the structures in CA
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:57:49PM +, Larig Tech wrote:
I like half your idea and hate the other half :o)
Of course it would not be a real solution, more like a very defensive
workaround, trying not to mess with any of CA's internals.
So MyApp would not _be_ a CA anymore, but only _have_ a
