> I figured that, and I realize I'm arguing about a really odd edge-case
> that probably won't ever happen to most users. I'm just striving to
> make the API as clear as possible and offer as few surprises as
> possible to the user of it. It also makes it easier to document and
> describe.
Yes, I can appreciate that.
>
> I'd like that if the user-set timeout is less than the keep-alive
> timer has left, it should use the api_timeout and return an error if
> it hits that timeout.
>
> If you update the patch, I'll offer to write the first draft of the
> man pages for the two new functions!
Deal ;-)
I think this patch does that - but it's early in the morning still. Let
me know what you think
-- _____________________________________________ Matt Lilley Software Engineer SecuritEase Tel: +64 4 912-2100 Fax: +64 4 912-2101 E-mail: matt.lilley_at_securitease.com Web: http://www.securitease.com _____________________________________________ This e-mail has passed our content security scan. It is covered by the confidentiality clauses at http://www.securitease.com/content_and_confidentialityReceived on 2011-05-04