Can we move the discussion to the mailing list, and out of STATUS
please. Reading a discussion in a test file is an annoying way to do
this.
Ryan
--
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
645 Howard St. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
San
The fact that APR has provided me with a platform-neutral way to get
high-resolution time has been a *huge* boon to my work. While I realize
this is a limited example, the same applies to many other use cases I can
think of.
Stop hand-waving-saying-we're-hand-waving, please. IMO there's
Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
Me and Sander Striker made a deal. He and I decided to fix
apr_psprintf the same way - including the removal of the older fix
in apr_vformatter. So, Sander is going to fix and commit the
apr_psprintf and apr_vformatter things - and I am going to supply the
testcases
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Just as a trivial example of using apr_time_sec_get... it helps us
avoid casting over in the new poll/unix/poll.c line 164, where
tv.tv_sec = apr_time_sec_get(timeout);
avoids a compiler emit that we are downcasting an in64 to a long.
What's your strategy for
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 12:13:54AM -, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
jerenkrantz2002/07/11 17:13:54
Modified:.STATUS
Log:
IMHO, apr_time_t should be treated as an opaque value. The library should
be
free to change the implementation details whenever it wants.
There
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 05:31:29PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 12:13:54AM -, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
jerenkrantz2002/07/11 17:13:54
Modified:.STATUS
Log:
IMHO, apr_time_t should be treated as an opaque value. The library
should be
On 12 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ [fielding; Cliff says he has a sample app. I still don't know how
+ he uses them without making implementation assumptions about
+ apr_time_t everywhere (there is no print routine for microsecond
+ resolution), but I'll
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Regarding this apr_time_t 'debate,' are we going to be operating
under majority voting or consensus voting?
Questions about the code are always resolved by consensus or lazy
consensus (which clearly does not apply here :). Majority is only ever
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
As near as I can tell from looking at the code and cvs logs, the only
reason we have apr_size_t and apr_ssize_t is because win32 wants to
define apr_ssize_t. Is that because win32 doesn't have ssize_t?
Is there a reason why we don't simply define ssize_t on that platform?
Roy
I will say the very same thing Ryan did several weeks [months?] ago.
Where were you for the last two years?
Complaining about how fucked up the design decisions were for apr_time_t.
Its in the archives. People didn't want to deal with it before due to
more pressing concerns. 2.0 is now out, so
Um, Roy? WTF are you talking about?
From apr/time/unix/time.c:
APR_DECLARE(apr_time_t) apr_time_now(void)
{
struct timeval tv;
gettimeofday(tv, NULL);
return tv.tv_sec * APR_USEC_PER_SEC + tv.tv_usec;
}
And as for demonstrated needs, you're thinking too Apache-centric by a
longshot.
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 July 2002 04:20
I will say the very same thing Ryan did several weeks [months?] ago.
Where were you for the last two years?
Complaining about how fucked up the design decisions were for apr_time_t.
Its in the archives. People
Irrelevant. If you want httpd to use APR, then it had better not make
httpd
worse for no good reason. If there is a reason, then I want it
documented
in the code. If not, if it is just the whim of some folks using APR,
then
I will fork the httpd project away from APR.
Roy, isn't this a bit of
It isn't supposed to be funny. I want to know why APR folks seem to think
that other applications of APR are as important, or even remotely as
important, as the performance of httpd. I want to know because all of the
decisions
that have been made in the name of other application's needs
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
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
As near as I can tell from looking at the code and cvs logs, the only
reason we have apr_size_t and apr_ssize_t is because win32 wants to
define apr_ssize_t. Is that because win32 doesn't have ssize_t?
Is there a reason why we don't simply define
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 17:22, 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
From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 17:22, 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
I have made my decision for the test framework that I will use for the
new APR test suite. It will be cutest. I will include a copy of cutest
in the CVS repository, so that people who don't want to download a
special program won't have to. Cutest is zlib licensed, so it won't
have any conflict
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
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Can we start this conversation over completely?
I think we just did that yesterday. :-)
Currently we are
arguing over names for a new type, but I don't think we actually know
the problem that we are trying to solve.
The problem is that don't have a consensus on whether to name
Let's try to get a consensus. This is my proposal. There are other
proposals like it, but this one is mine. Please restrict discussion
to this proposal.
Two questions, multiple choice:
1) apr_butime_t - binary useconds since the epoch (absolute time)
[ ] +1, I support this.
[ ]0, I
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:36:06AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Let's try to get a consensus. This is my proposal. There are other
proposals like it, but this one is mine. Please restrict discussion
to this proposal.
What is this for?
I don't think we've settled whether we want an abstract or
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:42:02AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:36:06AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Let's try to get a consensus. This is my proposal. There are other
proposals like it, but this one is mine. Please restrict discussion
to this proposal.
What
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: apr_buckets_pipe.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apr-util/buckets/apr_buckets_pipe.c,v
retrieving revision 1.50
retrieving revision 1.51
diff -u -r1.50 -r1.51
On 12 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-apr_file_pipe_timeout_set(p, 0);
+// Only mess with the timeout if we are in a blocking state
+// otherwise we are already nonblocking so don't worry about it.
+if (timeout 0) {
+
At 01:47 PM 7/12/2002, 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.
I will try to do so in a fair and balanced way;
I. We represent all time quantum in the same scale throughout APR.
On 12 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-apr_file_pipe_timeout_set(p, 0);
+// Only mess with the timeout if we are in a blocking state
+// otherwise we are already nonblocking so don't
worry about it.
+if (timeout 0) {
+
Actually, it's also out of line. If we have a vote in CVS, or even another
vote present, you really shouldn't go instigating more confusing or
conflicting votes to track, especially if it's not your proposal or patch.
And no, we haven't settled abstract or concrete contracts for the time
scale,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I hope this is a balanced and fair summary of the discussion to date.
Lovely.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
A society that will
In the first place a pipe can be in non-blocking mode and still have a
timeout. In fact this is default functionality that APR has
implemented. If a pipe has a timeout of 0 or greater, it is
nonblocking. Take the case of mod_cgi. It specifically sets a timeout
on the pipes so that
Now my own comments;
I. We represent all time quantum in the same scale throughout APR. That
scale is in microseconds.
Which is goodness, because we don't ever have to go back to docs and ask,
Does that function take seconds or apr time?
II. Performance is an issue, we are attempting to
From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 02:15:49PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Actually, it's also out of line. If we have a vote in CVS, or even
another
vote present, you really shouldn't go instigating more confusing or
conflicting votes to track,
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:08:56PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
Well, for one thing, you can't make a proposal with just the names that
you like. A meritocracy means that you must accept that other people
may not agree with your ideas. Since there were other options offered
(whether you like
From: 'Aaron Bannert' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:08:56PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
Well, for one thing, you can't make a proposal with just the names
that
you like. A meritocracy means that you must accept that other
people
may not agree with your ideas. Since
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 02:42:22PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
And with (III.) above, it just makes good sense to pick new names for this
new type, IF we are going to have a contract with the programmers about
the representation. We can have compatibility macros until the old symbols
38 matches
Mail list logo
