Buy commercial curl support from WolfSSL. We help you work
out your issues, debug your libcurl applications, use the API, port to new
platforms, add new features and more. With a team lead by the curl founder
himself.
Re: Add CURLOPT_SERVER_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_MS option
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
From: Timothe Litt <litt_at_acm.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 14:35:25 -0500
On 19-Nov-23 13:01, Cristian Rodríguez via curl-library wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:05 AM Daniel Stenberg via curl-library
> <curl-library_at_lists.haxx.se> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2023, Yifei Kong via curl-library wrote:
>
> > However, there is only `CURLOPT_SERVER_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT` and no
> > `CURLOPT_SERVER_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_MS`, is it possible to add this
> option?
>
> It would probably make a lot of sense, yes!
>
> --
>
>
> strongly suggest it is a function that takes a struct timespec instead.
>
While I agree that a struct timespec* would be a better choice,
consistency in an API is important.
All the other _MS functions could also use a stuct timespec (you get
nanoseconds).
Perhaps a (CURLOPT_PRECISE_TIMEOUT, {CURLOPT_SERVER_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT,
...}, struct timespec*)?
This would reduce the CURLOPT namespace intrusion...
One could also include an enum to specify that the reference is to a
timespec (vs. some future picosecond structure, or even integer seconds,
usec (struct timeval *), jiffies - or whatever else the future brings.)
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
Received on 2023-11-19
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 14:35:25 -0500
On 19-Nov-23 13:01, Cristian Rodríguez via curl-library wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:05 AM Daniel Stenberg via curl-library
> <curl-library_at_lists.haxx.se> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2023, Yifei Kong via curl-library wrote:
>
> > However, there is only `CURLOPT_SERVER_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT` and no
> > `CURLOPT_SERVER_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_MS`, is it possible to add this
> option?
>
> It would probably make a lot of sense, yes!
>
> --
>
>
> strongly suggest it is a function that takes a struct timespec instead.
>
While I agree that a struct timespec* would be a better choice,
consistency in an API is important.
All the other _MS functions could also use a stuct timespec (you get
nanoseconds).
Perhaps a (CURLOPT_PRECISE_TIMEOUT, {CURLOPT_SERVER_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT,
...}, struct timespec*)?
This would reduce the CURLOPT namespace intrusion...
One could also include an enum to specify that the reference is to a
timespec (vs. some future picosecond structure, or even integer seconds,
usec (struct timeval *), jiffies - or whatever else the future brings.)
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
-- Unsubscribe: https://lists.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: https://curl.se/mail/etiquette.html
- application/pgp-signature attachment: OpenPGP digital signature