I would attribute the cryptographic quality reference in section 4 as
just referring to randomization. Making the PRNG pluggable might
be a good
compromise solution.
Phil
I think that sounds good, for the version 4 (random bytes) uuid (I think
that's what you meant? - version 1 uses MD5 of
Tim Reilly wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
I imagine performance tests of anything using SecureRandom
(VersionFourGenerator, and InMemoryStateImpl) may be dismal due to
initialization.
Not just initialization. The calls are also *much* slower than Random.
I think I did a static reference to the
--- Tim Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Phil,
Why, btw, did you think that we
needed to use SecureRandom? Is there any expectation in the spec
that the
random data will be cryptographically secure?
Quoting
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-uuid-urn-02.txt
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Adkins Kendall wrote:
Here is a UID Generator we are using. Part of the UID contains the hash of
a final static object instance. In this way, while a JVM is up you are
assured no other objects can occupy the same memory address. We have had no
difficulty with it under
And I thought I was helping! Thanks. :)
-Original Message-
From: Marc Slemko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:27 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [id] UUID update
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Adkins Kendall wrote:
Here is a UID Generator we
Adkins Kendall wrote:
Hmm. I guess I can't send attachments. Is there a better way to share
source code?
You can add file attachments to Bugzilla tickets that you can create here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Commons
For [id], select Sandbox as the Component or add
Phil Steitz wrote:
...
than updating the Apache license to 2.0. This is a good start. We need to
get a better feel for stability / performance and some more eyeballs on
this code, so I thought it best to get it into CVS now, even if we decide
to refactor / repackage down the road. Thanks for
I will look at this stuff carefully this weekend, but one thing that
jumped out at me from your post above was that the global lock issue
might be avoidable by putting more into the node identifier, i.e., build
in a jvm identifier. IIRC, this is essentially what tomcat when
generating
Tim Reilly wrote:
I'll be traveling until March 1st - so I won't have much access to respond
to comments or question regarding this post until after next week. However,
looking forward to your thoughts.
Alrighty then :-)
I will look at this stuff carefully this weekend, but one thing that
I'll be traveling until March 1st - so I won't have much access to respond
to comments or question regarding this post until after next week. However,
looking forward to your thoughts.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I appologize for this as I mistook the ticket as a [lang] and not [sandbox]
ticket.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Tim Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 17:28
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [id] UUID update
Hi Gary,
[I wrote
, February 18, 2004 9:52 PM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [id] UUID update
I appologize for this as I mistook the ticket as a [lang] and not
[sandbox]
ticket.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Tim Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18
12 matches
Mail list logo
