Most Efficient Timer?

[Richard Gaskin]

Scott Rossi wrote:
> Recently, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I guess Scott was concerned about the smoothness of the time display
>>>ticking over. If you send every 1 second, and there is something holding
>>>up message processing, the timer may be late to update. Increasing the
>>>frequency increases the chance of getting it right (but doesn't
>>>guarantee it).
>>
>>Wouldn't any issues that would delay the firing of a one-second timer
>>also delay a 1/10th second timer as well?
> 
> 
> It could, but if one is after one second accuracy, for example, the
> one-second timer will be thrown off, whereas the 1/10-second timer has the
> opportunity to correct itself (assuming whatever issues delay the timer
> don't take 3 seconds to execute).

If a message were completely removed from the queue that would be an 
issue.  But if the message is merely delayed until the next idle, 
wouldn't all messages that are due for firing get fired in their firing 
order, regardless of the wait period specified when they were queued?

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site
  ___________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com