On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:47:36PM +0100, David Reid wrote: > Can someone simply restate what issue needs fixing. No more hand waving or > IRC chats, a simple email explaining the issue and what needs fixed.
As I see it, these are the issues: 1) apr_time_t is inefficient, especially for systems that only require per-second granularity. binary useconds have been proposed to solve the problem. 2) apr_time_t is similiarly named to time_t, but is not so similiarly implemented. Reducing or removing this confusion has been proposed. 3) What do we name the new time system? [I have vetoed to use of apr_time_t for this purpose. See previously discussed technical justification.] 4) How do we introduce this new time representation to APR and the numerous places where it is: - Operated on (with simply scalar operations -- +,-,*,/,%,etc..) - Passed with an APR function (select(), timeouts, etc...) - Printed What did I miss? -aaron
