On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Diez B. Roggisch <de...@web.de> wrote: > Nick Zitzmann schrieb: >> >> On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote: >> >>> Just for the record - the timoutInterval of 0 is the culprit. I don't >>> have the slightest idea why it stopped working, but I don't care either. It >>> might be worth mentioning in the docs though that passing 0 actually >>> terminates the request immediatly, instead of setting the timeout to >>> unlimited. >> >> >> That makes sense, actually. If you want the timeout interval to be >> unlimited, then you should pass in DBL_MAX, which will cause it to time out >> ~300 million years from now, by which point I assume your computer will no >> longer be around (or at least you won't be using it)... 0 usually means "do >> it now" when it comes to time intervals. > > But it doesn't mean "do it now", it means "don't do it at all"...
Well no, it means "do it unless it takes longer than the time I specify, in which case give up". Of course if you specify 0 time, it has to give up instantaneously, unless it can somehow do the work instantaneously. Practically speaking, a 0 timeout might (might!) mean to return cached data but not attempt to get fresh data. Mike _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
