On 04/10/2014 08:21 PM, Steven Schlansker wrote:
On Apr 9, 2014, at 2:21 AM, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
That seems a terribly broken usage of UUID for 128 bit numbers or a pair of
signed 64 bit numbers :-)
On Apr 11, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Code that relies on UUIDs to have a natural order, say chronological, is
relying on being given the particular type of UUIDs that have the time
built-in. When given mixed-type or non-time-based UUIDs, such code
On Apr 9, 2014, at 2:21 AM, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
That seems a terribly broken usage of UUID for 128 bit numbers or a pair of
signed 64 bit numbers :-)
Part of me thinks we should not be supporting
On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
For the case of incorrect signed comparison is it sticking around because
there is code dependent on the current broken behaviour?
Probably even if the dependence is implicit such as expecting a particular
iteration
On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
The issue is that the comparison is done upon the signed most significant and
least significant long values.
At minimum UUIDs should be compared as if they were 128-bit unsigned values.
Thanks.
Beyond that, version
On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:03 AM, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
I also note that UUID does not currently support version 5, SHA-1, which it
should.
I am hoping to do other performance work on UUID within the
I am targeting to have the performance improvements you contributed to UUID
into 8u40 (around the end of the year). I expect to contribute the work into
OpenJDK 9 in June-Julyish.
Mike
On Apr 8 2014, at 09:34 , Steven Schlansker stevenschlans...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:03 AM,
On Apr 8 2014, at 01:03 , Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
The issue is that the comparison is done upon the signed most significant
and least significant long values.
At minimum UUIDs should be compared as
The issue is that the comparison is done upon the signed most significant and
least significant long values.
At minimum UUIDs should be compared as if they were 128-bit unsigned values.
Beyond that, version (which is a type not a version) 1 and 2 UUIDs (time
based and DCE), should have a more
