could of course also do:
http://host/session?event
-Original Message-
From: Rocco Caputo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New PoCo Guidelines
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Erick Calder wrote:
poe
: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New PoCo Guidelines
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:17:59PM -0700, Erick Calder wrote:
Perhaps I'm too sentimental but I prefer names that are pronounceable.
POEx is pretty pronounceable: POE-ex
POEx
I like the brevity
]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 7:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New PoCo Guidelines
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:17:28AM -0700, David Davis wrote:
I like POEx also.
Philip:
If you wanted to get a postback for a certain session/event you could do:
ZipEvent =
$kernel-ID_id_to_session
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Erick Calder wrote:
poe://session@/event
I like poe://session/event but agree that [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes more sense
than [EMAIL PROTECTED] however I don't think session@ is necessary since
poe:://kernel/event would make no sense anyway.
I
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:51:29PM -0700, Erick Calder wrote:
It allows people to publish modules autonomously.
using POE:: shouldn't present any problem with this
This is technically true. Only politeness prevents people from dropping
modules into someone else's namespace. Politeness
I propose a common nomenclature.
I never like reverse Hungarian notation and variants because invariably you
end up with names that don't describe the datatype well, or you end up with
long names, and I hate long names.
I think names should be functional: state describes the thing without
On (08/06 01:50), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me through my vote in for POEx.
Agreed. i like POEx a lot. makes it very clear what is in core and what
is not.
--
sungo
http://eekeek.org
On (08/06 01:57), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZipEvent=$mutter
Now the point I've been raising for several years : say I want the
event posted to another session, how do I specify that?
I propose a common nomenclature.
FooState : a subroutine reference. the contents of the state to be
I like POEx also.
Philip:
If you wanted to get a postback for a certain session/event you could do:
ZipEvent = $kernel-ID_id_to_session($session_id)-postback('zip_event',@event_args),
pretty ugly and would cause an error for a session that didn't exist
I would like to suggest we use
Perhaps I'm too sentimental but I prefer names that are pronounceable.
POEx is pretty pronounceable: POE-ex
POEx
I like the brevity of this. my issue however, is that the implication is
that modules in that namespace are extensions... and I don't perceive
components as extensions... an
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:59:03 -0600 Wiggins d Anconia wrote:
+--
| I'll add another. I think at the very least POE (with the 'E') needs to
| stay intact. I know the chatting convention has been to use 'PoCo',
| but to keep the two related I think the full 'POE' spelling
Chris Fedde wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:59:03 -0600 Wiggins d Anconia wrote:
+--
| I'll add another. I think at the very least POE (with the 'E')
needs to
| stay intact. I know the chatting convention has been to use 'PoCo',
| but to keep the two related I think the full
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:17:59PM -0700, Erick Calder wrote:
Perhaps I'm too sentimental but I prefer names that are pronounceable.
POEx is pretty pronounceable: POE-ex
POEx
I like the brevity of this. my issue however, is that the implication is
that modules in that namespace are
On 06-Aug-2004 Rocco Caputo wrote:
The reasons for or against a loader class are fuzzy judgment calls,
not good vs. evil issues. One negative aspect I can think of offhand
is that it makes class loading more complex. You should decide
whether the convenience outweighs the complexity.
On 04-Aug-2004 Rocco Caputo wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0700, David Davis wrote:
-callback event declarations
What does this mean?
How to I tell a POEx::Foo component what events should be posted when Zip
happens. In other words :
my $foo=POEx::Foo-new();
On 06-Aug-2004 Rocco Caputo wrote:
The reasons for or against a loader class are fuzzy judgment calls,
not good vs. evil issues. One negative aspect I can think of offhand
is that it makes class loading more complex. You should decide
whether the convenience outweighs the complexity.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:59:03 -0600 Wiggins d Anconia wrote:
+--
| I'll add another. I think at the very least POE (with the 'E') needs to
| stay intact. I know the chatting convention has been to use 'PoCo',
| but to keep the two related I think the full 'POE' spelling needs
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:00:34AM -0400, sungo wrote:
On (08/06 01:57), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZipEvent=$mutter
Now the point I've been raising for several years : say I want the
event posted to another session, how do I specify that?
I propose a common nomenclature.
FooState :
]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New PoCo Guidelines
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:41:35PM +0100, Matthew Trout wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:19:59PM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote:
There's no requirement that they exist in POE::. For example,
Term
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:19:59PM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote:
There's no requirement that they exist in POE::. For example,
Term::Visual lives somewhere entirely different.
One drawback, however, is you can't then use
use POE qw(Component::Server::TCP Component::Client::DNS);
The
On 29-Jul-2004 Erick Calder wrote:
The doco for both is thin.
:( I thought I did a pretty decent job at doc for ::Child... if you have
any suggestions I'd be happy to consider them.
Maybe I skimmed to fast through the doco, but I had to read the code to
find the arguments that were pasted to
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:38:47 -0700 Erick Calder wrote:
+--
| POE::Component::Base
|
| I love it. and now that we're talking about this, could we shorten the base
| name? I have components like POE::Component::Player::Mp3 - which is
| entirely too long! Could we at least
: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:56 AM
To: Erick Calder
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: New PoCo Guidelines
On 29-Jul-2004 Erick Calder wrote:
The doco for both is thin.
:( I thought I did a pretty decent job at doc for ::Child... if you have
any suggestions I'd be happy to consider them.
Maybe I
Suggested standard for component documentation: describe the session
structure created by the component, and in particular describe in
which session each callback coderef is evaluated. I had some small
adventures with PoCo::Server::TCP until I understaoond exactly what
session it created and
On 26-Jul-2004 sungo wrote:
On (07/25 16:56), David Davis wrote:
-call conventions (use hashrefs instead of arrays?)
are you talking about the insides of a component object? if so, don't
meddle there. any guidelines for components really need to stick to
interface alone. let the
components like POE::Component::Player::Mp3 - which is
entirely too long! Could we at least do POE::Co?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:44 AM
To: sungo
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New PoCo Guidelines
On 26-Jul
]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 6:48 AM
To: David Davis
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New PoCo Guidelines
On (07/25 16:56), David Davis wrote:
-call conventions (use hashrefs instead of arrays?)
are you talking about the insides of a component object? if so, don't
meddle there. any guidelines
27 matches
Mail list logo
