On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 08:20:13AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:45:07PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I would not use a 100% random number generator for a UUID value as was
> > suggested. I prefer inserting the MAC address and the time, to at
> > least allow me to control if a collision is possible. This is not easy
> > to do using a few lines of C code. I'd rather have a UUID type in core
> > with no generation routine, than no UUID type in core because the code
> > is too complicated to maintain, or not portable enough.
> As others have mentioned, using MAC address doesn't remove the
> possibility of a collision.
It does, as I control the MAC address. I can choose not to overwrite it.
I can choose to ensure that any cases where it is overwritten, it is
overwritten with a unique value. Random number does not provide this
level of control.
> Maybe a good compromise that would allow a generator function to go into
> the backend would be to combine the current time with a random number.
> That will ensure that you won't get a dupe, so long as your clock never
> runs backwards.
Which standard UUID generation function would you be thinking of?
Inventing a new one doesn't seem sensible. I'll have to read over the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly