On 7/12/07, Dustin Sallings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 12, 2007, at 12:45 , Marc wrote:
> Are there any places where we either require absolute time or a time
> interval greater than 49 days? For the latter, we could simply use a
> uint64_t version of timestamp, but I'd rather that be the exception
> than the
> common case.
Well, I'm wondering if anyone has an interval that long where they
don't mean ``forever.'' It might be enough to say 0 == no time-based
invalidation.
I think this is a good option to have (although not essential) if
someone simply wants to not worry about time invalidation and just
rely on LRU and cache size constraints. In a way that's even more
classical cache-y than time based invalidation.
As a cache, it should be considered possible that an entry may
disappear at any time and you'll have to regenerate it.
Agreed.
