Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Old version of LWP::Agent

by parser (Acolyte)
on Apr 27, 2012 at 04:00 UTC ( [id://967510]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Old version of LWP::Agent
in thread Old version of LWP::Agent

LWP::Debug has long been gutted of any functional code. It is a mere shell so that all of the modules which depend upon it being there do not fail. I am looking for version that contains all of the debug code so that I can leverage it in a Mechanize project. Yes, I can fire up Wireshark but LWP::Debug was useful for its intended purpose.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Old version of LWP::Agent
by Marshall (Canon) on Apr 27, 2012 at 04:57 UTC
    I don't know what kind of debugging info that you expect from WWW::Mechanize? I use WireShark and variants to analyze whether I can get a DNS name resolved, etc.

    My internet connect is "fairly reliable", but it will still fail at random unexplainable points - often due to a "barf" at the other end - happens maybe every 3,000 URL's or so. So I just do a re-try which works >99% of the time. Very seldom does one of these things go past one retry and I allow 2 retries.

    Logging massive details of all communications in search of an unrepeatable and rare communication failure between you and site X will not help. What are you going to do with that? Sounds like a lot of logging data that will tie your computer into knots while producing no useful actionable information!

    If there is some kind of a "bad boy" website (slow, unreliable...whatever), logging that is useful. But you will have that info from the normal functions.

      Marshall, thank you for your measured and patient responses. I had no idea my post would cause such confusion. I am usually more articulate so this is a new experience for me.

      When I first started using WWW::Mechanize I grew used to setting

      use LWP::Debug qw(+);

      as a simple sanity check to view feedback during my early prototyping phases. Once I need to perform more serious debugging I would use more focused tools such as tamper-data, live-headers, wireshark, etc.

      It sounds like your use case is different than mine. I do not have a requirement to handle 3,000 URIs. I am automating interaction with a limited number of URIs but ones that have fairly complex interaction and formatting (lots of Dojo and Javascript). Having visibility into send and receive traffic (interspersed with my code) at a simple level is useful. Perhaps there is another mechanism I am overlooking besides LWP::Debug.
Re^3: Old version of LWP::Agent
by parser (Acolyte) on Apr 27, 2012 at 22:25 UTC
    A big mea cupla is in order.

    I misunderstood the comments in the LWP::Debug.pm file as saying the entire module was deprecated. I have implemented the new handlers and they work very well for quick prototyping.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://967510]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (3)
As of 2024-04-25 06:30 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found