From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2006-08-18T22:50:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Microsoft Timestamp (Active Directory)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clifford Heath [mailto:no@spam.please.net] 
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:45 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: Microsoft Timestamp (Active Directory)
> 
> 
> Berger, Daniel wrote:
> > Leave it to Microsoft to come up with something this convoluted:
> 
> What could possibly be *less* convoluted than keeping time as 
> a high resolution (in this case, 100ns) integer since some 
> epoch? It's actually the *perfect* way to handle time, and I 
> thought that (and implemented it) long before I knew MS had done it.

I guess I don't understand why you would need that level of granularity
since the return value isn't guaranteed to be 100% accurate (according
to the article I linked to, anyway).  Why not just use seconds since
epoch?

Ok, maybe "convoluted" wasn't the proper word here.  It just struck me
as strange that they would use Jan. 1, 1601 as the base date, and use
nanosecond resolution to boot.

Regards,

Dan


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication 
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy 
all copies of the communication and any attachments.