On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:25:00PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > Which *looks* okay. My best guess is that, since we're comparing > apr_time_t's, maybe mtime includes some number of microseconds and thus is > greater than the ims for the same second. Does that sound reasonable? If > so, I guess we need to divide ims, mtime, and r->request_time by > APR_USEC_PER_SEC before comparison.
Yeah. HTTP/1.1 (section 3.3.1) only allows for second resolution, so this seems the only way we can be RFC-compliant. -- justin
