On Tuesday 25 October 2005 05:57, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have some > limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a while...
Matthew, I my case 512 would have worked fine. Ed > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:32:09PM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote: > > >> > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > >> > > > >> > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > > >> > names > > >> > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer > > >> > filenames? > > >> > > >> If you mean just for filenames, that should do, I would think. But if > > >> you're talking about complete pathnames, then no, I'd suggest at least > > >> doubling that figure. > > > > > >I agree with this one. I have seen path/file exceed 256 with nasty > > >results - > > >it was with a backup system. > > > > on my system i've no problems breaking the 400 border for full > > path+filename...
