curl / Mailing Lists / curl-library / Single Mail
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.


From: Yifei Kong via curl-library <>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 14:36:21 +0800

Thanks for all your suggestions. Another issue that bugs me is that it
seems that this option does not work with HTTP. The documentation says it
only works with FTP, IMAP, POP3, SMTP and SSH. Considering the wide usage
of HTTP, can we expand the available protocols of it to more?

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 4:32 AM Timothe Litt via curl-library <> wrote:

> On 19-Nov-23 15:07, Ray Satiro via curl-library wrote:
> On 11/19/2023 2:35 PM, Timothe Litt via curl-library wrote:
> 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).
> ...}, 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.)
> Nanosecond timeouts are not useful for curl because there is too much out
> of our control to support that level of granularity. It is hard enough with
> milliseconds. If you have a timeout 100ms then curl might not be able to
> stop until 120ms or even some longer time depending on scheduling, how
> often the timing is checked and how long other functions take to execute,
> some of them outside of curl's control. curl makes a best effort.
> I agree that timeouts can be hard; they always have been. On the other
> hand, when the OS provides a resolution, passing it on can't hurt. Every
> OS already specifies that scheduling, clock resolution, IO, lock
> contention, etc mean that the requested timeout/delay is imprecise and
> effectively a lower bound.
> However, the main points are that IF you provide a more precise (not
> necessarily accurate) option, the API should be consistent and preferably
> extensible. Implementing a more precise (e.g. timespec_t *) option for
> just one timeout would be a mistake.
> I can remember when microsecond time values seemed silly (you measured
> cycle times in 10s of usec or more; instructions taking 10s of cycles) -
> then nanoseconds were silly (early implementations used quanta of 100 ns).
> So Dennard scaling limits notwithstanding, someday ms will seem trivial,
> usec easy, .... and psec the wave of the future. Extensions happen; curl
> can wait or anticipate. As for I/O: 19.2K RS232 was hard; today's 400Gb/s
> ethernet was unthinkble (much less 1.6Tb/sec). So I wouldn't lock-in the
> time-representing structure of the month....
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
> --
> Unsubscribe:
> Etiquette:

Yifei Kong
May the force be with you.

Received on 2023-11-20