Well, the downside to doing that is that sleeping for 1 second really is an awfully (unacceptably?) long time.
Doug Cutting said: > Hani Suleiman wrote: >> Still doesn't 'feel' right though. > > I agree. It makes it no longer a date field, but a version field. Any > application which uses the value as a date may fail. > > I think a better approach might be to define a sleep constant with > different values on different OSes. It could be 1ms by default, and > 1000 on OSX. It would be better yet if the sleep time could be > determined based on the filesystem, and only set to 1000 for indexes > that reside on HFS systems, but that may or may not be easy. > > Doug > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To > unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
