[Standards] mobile optimizations (was: Re: DevCon report)

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Feb 28 09:50:06 UTC 2008


On Wed Feb 27 18:01:30 2008, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Dave Cridland wrote:
> >
> > I also have a fondness for modified strictly increasing  
> timestamps, but
> > implementors need to appreciate that computer clocks go  
> backwards, so they
> > need to remember to handle odd cases like that by "letting time  
> catch up" -
> > just using a few ms later than the last timestamp until the real  
> time is
> > greater than the last timestamp.
> 
> Why not specify a monotonically increasing version counter instead  
> of a
> real time stamp?

They're a lot easier to specify, yes. Although you mean "strictly  
increasing", or possibly "strictly monotonically increasing", and not  
"monotically increasing". But I'm definitely not saying a real  
timestamp - I've tried to use the phrase "modified strictly  
increasing timestamps" to underline this.

It's the difference between IMAP's MODSEQ, and ACAP's modtime. ACAP's  
modtimes give the client slightly more information, whereas IMAP's  
MODSEQs are considerably easier to specify.

I'm basically happy with either, I think I'm just fond of ACAP-like  
stuff. :-)

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at jabber.org
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade



More information about the Standards mailing list