On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:10:14PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Uh oh. Looks like we'll be hashing this out again :) > > Which is exactly why we should table the time discussion until > we have a versioning system *enforced*. > > Aaron has explicitly veto'd any changes to apr_time_t that cause > broken binary compatibility (i.e. changing the meaning of > apr_time_t but not the API). Whether I agree or disagree doesn't > matter. It's a valid veto and I've spent too much time arguing > (and then agreeing) with Aaron about this. > > The one thing we agreed upon was that if we have the versioning in > place, then we can do whatever we want to apr_time_t since the app > has a way of knowing that binary compatibility isn't met.
A versioning mechanism doesn't give you carte blanche to break binary compat, it just lets users know if you have. > So, let's get versioning enforced, and then we have a mechanism for > breaking (or enhancing) apr_time_t. And, at this point, I don't > care much what happens to apr_time_t. My only requirement is that > if it changes and we don't bust the API, then we have to bump the > version. -- justin > Like I have said for a while, just leave time along. Apps should use time_t if they don't want microsecond resolution. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
