Open Stack

On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 10:12 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Please see below:

> Dropping the counter/nonce for the first cut sounds good to me.

Ok then I will just drop it, I am writing some code to play with and the
counter is just annoying and requires more state to be kept. I'll change
the page and get rid of it.

> >> 5. Can we please use ISO 8601 timestamps instead of unixtime?
> >
> > At the moment I am experimenting with python time.time() values that
> > have sub-second resolution. ISO8601 timestamp do not really make sense
> > here, This timestamp is not for human consumption, and having to parse
> > it back and forth is unnecessary. Also ISO 8601 does not have sub-second
> > resolution, while we may want to use it so that we can also drop the
> > counter as the chance of 2 message being sent to the same target to end
> > up with the same timestamp are low, and we can make it 0 by simply
> > keeping around the old timestamp and increasing it by 1 if the new one
> > matches exactly.
> 
> ISO8601 here is not for human consumption. In my environment, we make
> sure all components are synced using NTPD and we like adding code to
> reject messages outside of a time window.

And you really should use NTP, but what has that to do with how you
represent time in the metadata?

time.time() gives you the numbers of seconds since the epoch in UTC, int
his case with subseconds as well. If you can help me find better
language to define the format I'll be happy to. But I think number of
seconds since the epoch is fine, we do not need a structured date format
here. 

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York