At 07:22 PM 7/11/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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. Second, the
names are still horrible, I REALLY hate the busec in the name, because I
don't think _time_ when I see busec.
Then how about apr_buseconds_t? This makes it absolutely clear that the
type contains some number of buseconds [whatever those are... open the
doxygen pages... ah... +/-number of binary microseconds.] But the fact
is the type is clearly some number of seconds, therefore an interval.
apr_butime_t, or apr_busec_time_t is a 'Time' in the classic sense, the
number of bu's or busec's measured from a defined epoch.
That seconds represents an interval of seconds is redundant.
That the other type represents a 'Time' must continue to be clear.
Bill
