httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: default timeout values
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:44:26 GMT
+1 on Ryan's reply and design to use usecs.

Now, I have a -new- proposal that we adopt:

 ap_time_short_delta_t 

(3 characters longer than ap_time_interval_t) to replace that type,
and offer ap_time_long_delta_t as an int64 type for future growth.

This will resolve the issue that each coder in APR 'discovers' this
issue on their own and it reemerges on the list every two months.
I am -not- proposing any functions to accept ap_time_long_delta_t,
since Apache Server has no requirements to play long time games.  In
file and connection timeouts we will (probably) never need it.  The
compare times patch I wrote some time ago gracefully set >35 min to 
35 min and <-35 min to -35 min, so that solved that issue.

Comments on changing this type name for clarity?  (I just propose
delta instead of interval since it's a shorter word, that's all.)

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 9:23 AM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: default timeout values
> 
> 
> > > If we're hard & fast on the decision to use usec then 
> > > either we go with ap_int64_t everywhere, or duplicate long & 
> > > short versions of certain calls (we can probably get away with 
> > > just the short versions for Apache).
> > 
> > We are hard and fast on the decision to use usecs.  And the 
> 35 minute
> > limit is not a big deal.  I do not believe we need both 
> long and short
> > versions of these functions, yet.  Apache just cares about the short
> > version, and APR v1 is being written for Apache.
> > 
> > Ryan
> 
> Agree on decision to use usecs.
> 

Mime
View raw message