RE: Size checking?
From: Robert Freimuth (rfreimut_at_im.wustl.edu)
Date: 04/20/04
- Next message: Charles K. Clarkson: "RE: Win32::ODBC - Where's my data?"
- Previous message: Charles K. Clarkson: "RE: what is happening here"
- Maybe in reply to: Robert Freimuth: "RE: Size checking?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:30:48 -0500 To: "Wiggins d Anconia" <wiggins@danconia.org>, <beginners@perl.org>, <LoneWolf@nc.rr.com>
Sorry if this is a double post - I got a message saying it bounced...
> >> In truth, I used LWP because I was already using it in
> >> another part of the program, and because I thought the
> >> 'head' and 'getstore' functions would do
> >> what I needed (so it was out of laziness more than anything).
> >
> > These are very good reasons. The situation should be allowed
> > to dictate which tools are used, and I (we) know very little
> > about your situation. Should you use a hammer to pound in a nail?
> > Not if you are on the roof of a 3 story house, the nail is
> > really big, the only hammer you have access to is for finishing
> > nails and is in the basement *and* there is a
> > brick laying beside you....
>
> ...unless the nail you need to pound in is also in the basement. :)
>
> >> Now that I look at it, I agree Net::FTP looks like a more
> >> appropriate module than LWP. It appears to be purely OO, though,
> >> and I prefer a more procedural interface - do you know if
> >> Net::FTP supports that?
> >
> > Not sure... doubt it though, because of how Perl handles
> OOP you could
> > just hack it up in a procedural way, though I wouldn't necessarily
> > suggest it.
>
> That's what I thought. I guess I'll have to stick with the
> OO methods for that. (I don't have anything against OOP -
> it's just harder for me to get my head around it. In my
> case, it's not a coincidence that 'oops' is simply the plural
> of OOP. Oddly enough, though, I make extensive use of
> references to complex data structures, which seem perfectly
> logical to me...)
>
> >> That said, would Net::FTP still be the preferred module if
> >> the file you're downloading is NOT on an ftp server? For
> >> example, I am downloading flat text data files. Some of
> >> them are on an ftp site (cue Net::FTP, stage right), but
> >> some of them aren't. Specifically, they have a http
> >> address and, when the link to them is clicked, they are
> >> displayed as text instead of downloaded. So would LWP be
> >> appropriate for those files, or would Net::FTP still be the
> >> way to go?
> >
> > Net::FTP would not be the way to go, likely *can't* be the
> > way to go at least for the HTTP files. This is where an
> > underlying understanding of what FTP and HTTP really are, comes
> > into play and how they function in the client/server model.
> > If the remote host provides a file via HTTP it may not (likely
> > won't) provide the same file via FTP, and vice versa.
> > This makes LWP a good tool since it provides the same
> > interface to both protocols, essentially by reducing the
> > protocols to their common factors. Otherwise you would need
> > to code in a check that establishes whether a link is FTP or
> > HTTP and call different code for each different type, which is
> > why the LWP interface is so nice (and essentially what it
> > is doing) for parsing links that are contained in webpages and
> > just getting whatever is at the other end.
>
> Very good discussion - thanks. I will know ahead of time
> which files are using which protocols, so I don't need to
> code the logic to check the link, I'll just call the
> appropriate function/method (in LWP or Net::FTP).
>
> > Is it more important to you to have a unified interface,
> only need to
> > support a single module, etc. Or is it better to have maximum
> > flexibility and power at the cost of having to maintain multiple
> > interfaces and modules? Only your situation (including what you
> > consider production code, how long it takes to
> > release/migrate, testing requirements, physical resources, etc.),
> > needs, and future expectations can really tell you...
>
> I try to learn as much as I can from those that are smarter
> than I, and use the right tool for the job (reference to
> hammer/nail analogy above). Since this particular program is
> more of a production tool than a "one-off" script, I'd much
> rather rewrite a section so it's less of a kludge and easier
> to maintain than take the easy way out now and regret it
> later (maintenance, etc).
>
> > But to decide it helps to know all of the possiblities.
>
> Which is where you, the rest of this list, and Tim (Toady)
> come in. Thanks to all for educating us beginners about
> alternative ways of doing things.
>
> Bob
>
- Next message: Charles K. Clarkson: "RE: Win32::ODBC - Where's my data?"
- Previous message: Charles K. Clarkson: "RE: what is happening here"
- Maybe in reply to: Robert Freimuth: "RE: Size checking?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
