apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <bp...@pacbell.net>
Subject RE: cvs commit: apr STATUS
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:29:05 GMT
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 17:22, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> > At 07:34 PM 7/11/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > 
> > >Not quite opaque in that you can still compute deltas via a
> > >subtraction, but that to understand the quantities, you must place
> > >it through a function/macro.  Brian has already converted httpd
> > >to this model.  -- justin
> > 
> > OK... after much hand waving today... #apr channel folks have come
> > up with an interesting idea that might make all happy.
> > 
> > IF we adopt apr_butime_t to represent a time (epoch 1.1.1970) and
> > also adopt apr_busec_t to represent any interval, timeout or other
> > delta (not rooted to an epoch) ... both declared as 64bit values,
> would
> > that satisfy everyone?
> No.  The interval time needs to be called out as interval time, or you
> haven't solved the problem that type was intended to solve.

What was that problem?

I think of the interval types as a mistake that we tolerate
for historical reasons.  (It's a mistake to model time deltas
as a different type than absolute times because our "absolute"
time object itself is just a delta from the epoch.)

Can you share some background info on what you want to
solve with interval types?

> Second, the
> names are still horrible, I REALLY hate the busec in the name, because I
> don't think _time_ when I see busec.

Alternate naming suggestions are welcome...


View raw message