Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: rbb@covalent.net
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: RE: default timeout values
In-Reply-To: <000201bfdd3a$af99b0f0$345985d0@corecomm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006231049580.1173-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


> +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.)

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."

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 23 ->
64 bit values.

Ryan


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------