On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:18 AM, David Boxenhorn <da...@lookin2.com> wrote: > Tatu, I did read your comments - and I appreciate them very much! > > I want someone to argue with me (using good arguments) since what I'm doing > *does* seem weird to me - because no one else is doing it. > > What I mean by readable is that the sort order of my UUIDs are obvious to > humans. > > What I mean by "weird code" is mostly that it doesn't come with enough > authority that I would trust it as a black-box more than my own code. For > example, what happens when I want to port it to different kinds of machines?
Ok! It all makes sense -- honestly I just wanted to try to explain why certain consensus builds, not to argue against your way of doing things. I don't think you are missing anything obvious, my suggestions are really secondary arguments. I think you have good reasons and code looked solid. And yes, implementing time-based UUIDs leads to quite a few complications, if one tries to address all oddities. This is probably why JDK UUID is so limiting, I assume JDK authors did not want to deal with such aspects. And that is why I think that fundamentally random-based variant is good for the main goal of achieving uniqueness. > But another thing weird about it is the complexity (and I think low speed) > of the algorithms I need in my *own* code to use it. Just look at it > http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/FAQ#working_with_timeuuid_in_java ! Yes, that is definitely overly complicated (IMO). Perhaps Cassandra could add convenience methods for mundane things like converting between java.util.UUID and byte[]. Or authors of nice extension/convenience libraries like Hector (and others mentioned -- apologies for not listing I just worry I misspell their names :) ) -+ Tatu +-
