On 8/24/2010 4:35 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 24.8.2010, at 23.16, Ed W wrote:
At the moment I would claim that you are just automatically generating a very
complicated filename. If you never trust your hash then you might as well
instead simply use one of the existing GUID algorithms, if you trust your hash
then you use that. I don't really see the point of a halfway house really?
Oh and this current scheme of hash-guid + hashes/hash hard linking is required
in any case to keep track of reference counting. Unconditionally trusting the
hash wouldn't make it any simpler. With key-value databases you'd have to
figure out some other way to keep track of how many references there are to the
attachment.
Can you append some "trivial" information from the data file to the hash
in generating the file name to help ensure uniqueness? Like filesize,
mimetype, and/or date?
--
Daniel
