Have you asked Christian about this? -sc -- Sean Chittenden
On Nov 21, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Answering myself (in a different mailing list, no less!), I'd say > deadline_timer is broken. > > I've tested with the time_t_timer.cpp example from Asio itself. The > test is very easy: > > - Say now it's 14:19:10 > - Start time_t_timer > - Set time one hour back (to 13:19:10) > - Timers never expire (it doesn't matter if you do wait() or > async_wait() ) > > Tested on Mac OS X 10.6.2. To make testing easier, I set the expiry > time to 20 seconds and used only one timer at a time (i. e. I > commented out the second half of the example the first time and had > only the wait() first, then did the opposite). > > One intriguing issue is if instead of setting the time back one our, > you set the time forward one hour (15:19:10), the timer works. I don't > have time to research why this happens (I was expecting the test to > fail, too, as the point in time the timer is set to expire is never > reached exactly but just passed by). > > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:12 AM, OvermindDL1 <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Greetings. >> >> I programming library that I use (WT) had a bug in their asynchronous >> timer handling, and although they fixed it, they are thinking of >> moving over to Boost::ASIO timers since they already use Boost::ASIO >> for the networking stack. However, an interesting question was posed >> about how Boost::ASIO timers handle the time changing on the host >> computer (which is a possible scenario for this library due to its >> up-time requirements). Below is the basic part of the thread in >> question. Does anyone know the answer? I attempted a quick look >> through the timer source, however I cannot really seem to tell >> since I >> know not the internals of ASIO nor the posix datetime library in >> Boost... >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Koen Deforche <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hey all, >>>> >>>> 2009/11/19 OvermindDL1 <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> Speaking about WTimer, I think its implementation is wrong on >>>>>>> Unix and >>>>>>> could be more precise on Windows (although I'm not sure more >>>>>>> precision >>>>>>> is required; I've not checked if Wt::Time is used server-side). >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't looked, but is there any reason that >>>>>> boost::asio::deadline_timer isn't being used to back WTimer? >>>>>> I'm pretty sure this addresses all of the concerns listed >>>>>> below. -sc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_41_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/deadline_timer.html >>>>> >>>>> Much of Boost already handles a lot of things better, since >>>>> boost is >>>>> linked in anyway then we should use them, they have already been >>>>> well >>>>> debugged and optimized. >>>> >>>> That is very true. I guess a motivation at the time was to avoid >>>> the >>>> dependency on boost date_time for such a seemingly easy thing. >>>> But in >>>> the meantime, we are relying on boost date_time anyway, and it is >>>> clear that it is not that seemingly easy ? >>> >>> Actually, it is pretty easy. You've got 90% of the code there. >>> Take a >>> look at the OSG file I said. Fixing this on Unix is straightforward, >>> fixing on Windows is easy too. >>> >>> Further, I think using boost date_time is not the right solution, as >>> it does not provide timers - i. e. you'll be basing the timer on the >>> clock time (hh:mm:ss) instead of processor ticks or some other >>> entity >>> independent of clock time. If timers are based on hh:mm:ss - >>> hh':mm':ss' differences, they will fail when you change the computer >>> clock time. >>> >>> I have only looked slightly into the implementation of Asio timers >>> and >>> they do not use gettimeofday but they don't use clock_gettime >>> either, >>> therefore I wouldn't use them without carefully looking into the >>> implementation. >> _______________________________________________ >> Boost-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users > > > > -- > Pau Garcia i Quiles > http://www.elpauer.org > (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) > > --- > --- > --- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 > 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and > focus on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > _______________________________________________ > witty-interest mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
