apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: more notes on the apr_time_t issue
Date Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:35:58 GMT
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> 
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:16:17AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I really hate where our time implementation is going.  It used to be
> > VERY simple, and easy to modify and use.  From looking at this
> > conversation, it sounds like we are about to go to a VERY complex
> > implementation that is hard to modify and use.  :-(
> 
> Agreed that complexity is bad. I don't think we need more than one
> system of time in APR*.
> 
> -aaron
> 
> *I'm not opposed to having two during a transition phase, but with
> our set of requirements we should be able to come up with one (and
> I think we already have, no?).

We need two, one for standard time, and one for intervals, which are
rooted at an arbitrary point in time.  However, even with just one
implementation, the ideas being thrown about now are too complex.

A big reason that they are too complex, is that rather than come up with
a simple design, we are all afraid of the damned vetos that are being
thrown about.  This whole conversation should just start over, with no
vetos, and no emotions.  Vetos should be a last resort, but we don't use
them as a last resort, we use them as a way to shape where people go
with their ideas.

Everytime a veto is thrown out, the development gets more
confrontational.  What I hate most about this, is that I am a big reason
that the damned vetos are as common as they are.

Ryan



Mime
View raw message