On 24.8.2010, at 23.16, Ed W wrote: > At the moment I would claim that you are just automatically generating a very > complicated filename. If you never trust your hash then you might as well > instead simply use one of the existing GUID algorithms, if you trust your > hash then you use that. I don't really see the point of a halfway house > really?
Oh and this current scheme of hash-guid + hashes/hash hard linking is required in any case to keep track of reference counting. Unconditionally trusting the hash wouldn't make it any simpler. With key-value databases you'd have to figure out some other way to keep track of how many references there are to the attachment.
