On Wed Feb 27 18:01:30 2008, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> I also have a fondness for modified strictly increasing
timestamps, but
> implementors need to appreciate that computer clocks go
backwards, so they
> need to remember to handle odd cases like that by "letting time
catch up" -
> just using a few ms later than the last timestamp until the real
time is
> greater than the last timestamp.
Why not specify a monotonically increasing version counter instead
of a
real time stamp?
They're a lot easier to specify, yes. Although you mean "strictly
increasing", or possibly "strictly monotonically increasing", and not
"monotically increasing". But I'm definitely not saying a real
timestamp - I've tried to use the phrase "modified strictly
increasing timestamps" to underline this.
It's the difference between IMAP's MODSEQ, and ACAP's modtime. ACAP's
modtimes give the client slightly more information, whereas IMAP's
MODSEQs are considerably easier to specify.
I'm basically happy with either, I think I'm just fond of ACAP-like
stuff. :-)
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
