Re: IO::Multiplex enhancement

2002-06-04 Thread Bruce Keeler
Switching to IO::Poll sounds like a good move. I think all the UNIXes that we care about in this day and age support it. I presume that the various BSDs support poll, but I'll check to make sure. And yes, the timeout design was really bad. There's no reason for them to be per-filehandle at all

Re: IO::Multiplex enhancement

2002-06-04 Thread Bruce Keeler
Doug and Rob, Thanks for the patch. Tie::RefHash seemed cool at the time, and seemed like the right tool for the job. Profiling always has a lesson to teach us though, doesn't it? :) One thing that I noticed was that the tied filehandle package still seemed to be named MVModule::MVMux::Handle.

Re: IO::Multiplex enhancement

2002-06-01 Thread Douglas Webb
Cool... I've had to go further, though. Using the version with my patch, I'm able to easily handle 1500 hits/sec spread over 30 already-connected sockets. I've got about 50 hits/sec coming from each of those sockets (a limitation I've hit too... I've got a usleep call between each write to th

Re: IO::Multiplex enhancement

2002-05-31 Thread Rob Brown
Perl modules dudes: We are having big problems with this LIRAZ guy who still will not release control over IO::Multiplex because he cannot be contacted. He is not involved with this version of IO::Multiplex either. Can you reassign cpan author from LIRAZ to BBB for me? Or how can we fix this si