2009/11/20 Rocco Caputo rcap...@pobox.com
Agreed, a _child(lose) before the _child(create) is bad.
This a case of _child(lose) without any _child(create) ever (neither before
or after).
It should either be a _child(create)/_child(lose) pair, or nothing in this
case.
I'm tempted to go
Hi POE fellows,
I'm in the process of rewriting the backend of my POE::Component::Schedule
to make the backend session independent of others session in the system. The
point is that session is just backend stuff, so it should not fire _child
events to the session from which the API may have been
Agreed, a _child(lose) before the _child(create) is bad.
It should either be a _child(create)/_child(lose) pair, or nothing in
this case. I'm tempted to go with nothing since it would be hard to
fix the create/lose timing. Also the new(detached = 1) seems good,
but I admit I haven't
