Re: Re: Release of xPL-Perl v0.02

[Mark Hindess <xpl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 December 2005 at 23:11, "rleong1" <rleong1@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> will this work on windows?

Good question.  I don't really know the answer.

I don't have any windows machines to test on.  The main event loop is
very dependent on the underlying POSIX compliant functionality found on
unix/linux.  This means it is more likely to work on cygwin perl than
with ActiveState.

However it *might* work with ActiveState Perl.

> i have activeperl installed & copied the lib to my perl lib
directory.

I assume this is because you don't have 'make'.  The standard install
process will create the autosplit.ix files that you are missing.  At the
moment, I'm not really using them and the are mostly empty (well, they
contain just '1;').  Anyway, aside from the ugly warnings this shouldn't
affect functionality.

> when i start the logger i get a bunch of errors:
>
> C:\ftp\junk\xPL-Perl-0.02\bin>perl xpl-logger -i 10.1.1.1 -b
10.1.1.255
> [snipped some autosplit index warnings ]
> Unknown option: b
> xPL::Client->new: Unable to detect interface 10.1.1.1
>   at C:/Perl/site/lib/xPL/Client.pm line 97.

Ah.  I changed the interface to bind by '-i interface' rather than using
the -i and -b options.  (After you wrote this I checked and realised
that I'd update the '-h' usage message but hadn't updated the SYNOPSIS
in the man pages.  I fixed this now.  Thanks for the headsup.)

Unfortunately not having any windows machines, I couldn't write any code
to check windows interfaces.  I might be able to get this working by
looking at the parse in the Net::Ifconfig::Wrapper - which annoyingly I
can't just use because it hides the crucial information about interface
order.

I'll also put back the ability to specify the address to use themselves.

Until I've done one of these two things, then I think windows
activestate perl is doomed.  Cygwin might have a chance but even that is
optimistic.

Thanks for the feedback.  I will try to make progress on this in the
next week or two.

Regards,
Mark.