use Perl

• I'd be interested in that patch (Score:2)

  by TeeJay (2309)

  Hi Sam,
  
  I'd be interested in that patch as at my previous job we had a system that sent thousands of big multipart MIME emails at a time and that could improve things greatly.
  
  I'd also possibly use it in my new job too.

  --
  
  @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
  print reverse @JAPH;
  • Re:I'd be interested in that patch (Score:2)

    by samtregar (2699)

    Be my guest: http://sam.tregar.com/mime_liter.diff [tregar.com]

    -sam
• Maintaining MIME::Lite (Score:2)

  by bart (450)

  As plans are that I'm taking over maintenance of MIME::Lite, I'm taking a special interest in what you have done. I've received a more recent developer version of MIME::Lite from the current/old maintainer some time ago. I'll have to see how these things merge.
  
  First of all, as I'd like to duplicate your benchmarks, I wonder how exactly you measured things? What exactly did you test?
  
  Second, I have my doubts on how $sub_attrs->{'content-disposition'}{'filename'} would ever be faster than $sub_attrs->{'c
  • Re:Maintaining MIME::Lite (Score:2)

    by samtregar (2699)

    1) I'll send you the benchmarks I sent to the current maintainer via. I used Benchmark.pm, of course.

    2) The code needs to be able to loop through all the sub-attrs for a given attr in fields(). That would be rather complicated with the scheme you suggest, although it's possible it would be faster (and there's only one way to find out!). However, this isn't a change I made: the old code looked up every single attribute like $attr->{$attr}{$sub} where $sub was '' for the "main" attribute. My change r
    • Re:Maintaining MIME::Lite (Score:2)

      by bart (450)

      RE #2: You're right, judging by your explanation, the original looks very ugly indeed. I hadn't caught that in the casual reading of your patch.