Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling

Re: DIfference between LWP and WWW::Mechanize

by nagalenoj (Friar)
on Apr 10, 2009 at 13:58 UTC ( #756826=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to DIfference between LWP and WWW::Mechanize

www::mechanize is an excellent package, but I've never been able to get a version which passed the tests on the Windows or Linux boxes I've used. So I'll have to disagree with the comments that this should be a replacement for LWP::UserAgent. The fact that this package often (but not always) fails tests on certain platforms makes me reticent to require it for an application.

source: Cpan reviews

But, unfortunately I have not tested in non-unix machine.

  • Comment on Re: DIfference between LWP and WWW::Mechanize

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: DIfference between LWP and WWW::Mechanize
by ikegami (Pope) on Apr 10, 2009 at 18:45 UTC

    It's a dependency (HTTP::Server::Simple) that's failing. Mechanize only uses HSS for testing, and Mechanize isn't affected by whatever is causing the HSS test to fail. In other words, not a problem.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://756826]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2018-06-24 19:41 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Should cpanminus be part of the standard Perl release?

    Results (126 votes). Check out past polls.