|
Boost Users : |
From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-10 11:39:32
Stephen Turner wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:12:18 -0700
>> From: Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> Yes, sorry I was off the net on holiday for an extended
>> period :-) Finally getting caught up now...
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>> I would recommend that this be created as an alternative
>> tz_database class --
>> something like 'historic timezone database'. My experience
>> is that must
>> applications don't need the historic data and hence only
>> really care about
>> loading up the current set of rules.
>
> I'm sure that's true for many users. But I also wonder how many users there
> are who do care but haven't had a problem until now because they're in
> countries where the rules haven't changed in recent years, so it's just
> worked.
Good point -- the US change is certainly an unusual event -- hopefully others
will chime in on this.
> But let me put it the other way round. If a historical database were
> available, why would anyone choose to still use the existing method?
Memory usage would, I think, be the primary issue.
> Assuming the new method didn't impose a noticeable speed or memory
> constraint, of course.
I don't see how this is possible. If you offer the full history of all
timezones available for all historic time that would be a dramatic expansion
of the size of the internal database. At least this would be true without
some significant redesign of the time zone class so that each instance of a
particular region might share the tz rules with other instances -- currently
each instance has a copy so adding the historical perspective would add alot
of additional information for each region.
Jeff
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net