On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 09:34 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote: > On 8/24/2010 4:35 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > 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. > > Can you append some "trivial" information from the data file to the hash > in generating the file name to help ensure uniqueness? Like filesize,
I guess size could be there at least optionally, I'm not sure about as default. > mimetype, I think different clients could use different MIME types sometimes, causing unnecessary duplicates. > and/or date? I don't think attachments ever have dates? But if they did, again the problem of causing unnecessary duplicates.
