Ross, I'm not derogating the use of sequential IDs but IIRC, the bloke had a reason not to use a sequential id counter and wanted an alternative. The uuid spec states that uuid should cater for time adjustments on the local clock, hence, shouldn't be "vulnerable" (Of course, in the real world, that depends on how the spec has been implimented). The uuid can be sequentialised and can gauranteed to be unique to a high degree of certainty in time and space. There are no locking or contention issues when a uuid is generated opposed to a heavily used key generator. I stand by my assertion that a uuid is a viable and justifiable solution in the original posters problem space. ;-) Cheers, Stuart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ----- >This would still make things "vulnerable" whenever date/time changed >on >the generating machine .... the "beauty" of the sequential ID is that >fact that nit WILL be in "real time" order, regardless of what people >do >with dae & time of the machine ********************************************************************** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ********************************************************************** ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
