Am 16.06.2005 um 18:33 schrieb Paul Winkler:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:18:06PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. GUIDs (globally-unique
identifiers) aren't neccesary for integer IDs. We just need
locally-unique identifiers, which are much easier to generate.
Benji York wrote:
NUM_ID_BITS = 64
BIGGEST_ID = (2 << (NUM_ID_BITS + 1) - 1)
NUM_TIME_BITS = 48
BIGGEST_TIME = (2 << (NUM_TIME_BITS + 1) - 1)
I should have known better than posing code I wrote in 3 minutes. The
2s above should be 1s.
--
Benji York
Sr. Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
Right, but to manage the integer ids, we need to be able to turn objects
into keys, since many objects are not valid keys. The key reference
framework provides a way to generate keys from objects. The key reference
adapter for persistent objects has the extremely inconvenient
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:18:06PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. GUIDs (globally-unique
identifiers) aren't neccesary for integer IDs. We just need
locally-unique identifiers, which are much easier to generate.
What about export / im
Benji York wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know probably Leach & Mealling's discussion of possible solutions:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-uuid-urn-05.txt
We are using GUIDs with combined IP address, timestamp, and random
numbers
Uwe Oestermeier wrote:
They aren
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:18:06PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> I'm a bit confused by this conversation. GUIDs (globally-unique
> identifiers) aren't neccesary for integer IDs. We just need
> locally-unique identifiers, which are much easier to generate.
What about export / import of content?
Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know probably Leach & Mealling's discussion of possible
solutions:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-uuid-urn-05.txt
We are using GUIDs with combined IP address, timestamp, and random
numbers
Uwe Oestermeier wrote:
They aren't guaranteed to be u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>They aren't guaranteed to be unique. They are statistically
>very unlikely to conflict, but that chance of a conflict makes
>me nervous. We tend to create a lot of these, so I think the chances
>for conflict are higher than in many other applications.
>A major component
Uwe Oestermeier wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that you can't get key references for persistent objects is a
real
pain. I've thought a lot about that, but haven't come up with a good
solution.
(Phillip Eby suggested using GUIDs at one point. I've always been a bit
suspicious of GUID
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The fact that you can't get key references for persistent objects is a
>real
>pain. I've thought a lot about that, but haven't come up with a good
>solution.
>(Phillip Eby suggested using GUIDs at one point. I've always been a bit
>suspicious of GUIDs myself.)
What's t
Jim Fulton wrote:
Still, of course, for the bits we open source, I guess we are going to
have
to port back to 2.3.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Well, there's no need if we just say that this bit requires a Zope 3.1
running Python 2.4; why create extra work for ourselves?
+1
Since 3.1 will run o
Hi Jim,
perhaps we can discuss this on zope3-dev.
From: Jim Fulton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'GMane'; zope3-users@zope.org
> Subject: Re: [Zope3-Users] pluggable authentication utility
>
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > Hi Ricki
On 6/16/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I guess somehow Zope3 is trying to assign an id to workflow state
> > definitions too early. I can't "retry" this from my code myself (my
> > request will simply crash with the trace above), the real fix would
> > probably to make sure
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
We have some concerns though:
* the snapshot is probably aging as bugs get discovered and fixed in
your repository. Could you perhaps update the snapshot?
Sure.
Okay, cool!
* it requires Python 2.4.1. Zope 3.1 to my knowledge is targettin
Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
On 6/16/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
On 6/14/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In preparation for the 3.1 release, I made these packages (as
well as zope.app.observable and zope.app.schema) optional and thus
configured vi
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Since we keep running into snags and frustrations with the zope.app.form
package, we're checking out zc.page and see whether it could help us
any. We're going to try using it today.
Great!
We have some concerns though:
* the snapshot is probably aging as b
Hi there,
Since we keep running into snags and frustrations with the zope.app.form
package, we're checking out zc.page and see whether it could help us
any. We're going to try using it today.
We have some concerns though:
* the snapshot is probably aging as bugs get discovered and fixed in
On 6/16/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
> > On 6/14/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>In preparation for the 3.1 release, I made these packages (as
> >>well as zope.app.observable and zope.app.schema) optional and thus
> >>configured vie package i
18 matches
Mail list logo
