On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 10:03 PM 7/14/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > >BTW, this whole conversation started because we wanted to speed up > >Apache. Has anybody considered taking a completely different tack to > >solve this problem? > > > >I know there is a patent on this, but I am willing to ignore it, and I > >am pretty sure that we can get the patent owner to let us use it. (I > >won't say who owns the patent, but if the owner wants to stand up, it > >will be obvious why I say this). We could create a separate thread to > >keep track of the current time every second. That way, the computation > >is completely removed from request processing it is just a memory > >access. On platforms without threads, we just go back to getting the > >time during request processing. That will hurt performance for those > >platforms, but I am not too concerned about that. > > Such code, of course, certainly doesn't belong in apr. That's a higher > level construct that would fit well in http, or any other app that needs > such performance tweaks. The app would have to decide how to live > if it doesn't have threads available. > > And there is the matter of IP :-)
Of course this doesn't belong in APR, but the only reason the whole apr_time_t discussion came up was to fix a performance problem in Apache. If that performance problem hadn't come up, would we have even looked at changing the current implementation? Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
