httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: default timeout values
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:00:55 GMT
> From: []
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:52 PM
> > +1 on Ryan's reply and design to use usecs.
> > 
> > Now, I have a -new- proposal that we adopt:
> > 
> >  ap_time_short_delta_t 
> > 
> > Comments on changing this type name for clarity?  (I just propose
> > delta instead of interval since it's a shorter word, that's all.)
> I really don't think this helps clarity any, sorry.  :-}  I also don't
> mind replying to messages on the list with:
> "This topic has been discussed before, please see the archives for Jun
> 2000, and search for interval_time."

Fair enough, but I'd suggest that if 3 coders notice this 'bug' (we are
up to two already), that we have a doc problem or clarity problem.  Let's
not waste everyone's time unwinding the same restriction.
> I really think we are fine the way things are now.  If we want room to
> grow into the future, I think we can just change the def of
> ap_interval_time_t.  All this requires is a recompile to move 
> from 32 -> 64 bit values.

Here I disagree.  32 bits is a good thing for optimization, IMHO.  If we
ever did extend to hours or days, that would and should be a different 
type.  Declaring it now tells the new coder to APR that we did think
this through, and these functions are all in short time intervals.


View raw message