Re: [wxperl-users] alternatives to POE

[Mattia B. <mat...@li...>]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:37:15 -0800
"Donovan Allen" <al...@Zo...> wrote:

>  
> > To enable the concept of cooperative multitasking, I'd prob have to
> > break up the comms into smaller chunks, and have some form of state
> > memory for the poe framework to work. This however is not exactly the
> > straightforward style of coding as one would normally do (though this is
> > prob an arguable pt).
> 
> POE is non-blocking operators + iterators + event loop = cooperative multitasking.
> 
> > It seems to me that everyone knows how bad threading is for Perl, and
> > rather than openly admit it, we regress (again, another arguable
> > position) into cooperative multitasking. IMHO not the right thnig to do.
> 
> I think threading in perl is not so bad, but it is still very situational on where and when 
> you can really use it due to many modules that are not thread safe and the extreme memory
> overhead if your threads don't need all of the cloned data.

  I tend to agree. I also wonder if anybody has looked at
http://search.cpan.org/~mbarbon/Wx-App-Mastermind-0.02/
"a nontrivial example of wxPerl threads"

Regards
Mattia