[sldev] UUID variant/version bits?
zha.ewry at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 23:39:33 PST 2007
Well, in theory.. UUIDs are supposed to be Universal, not domain specific.
The bit space is supposed to be big enough... If it isn't, then we'll need
to migrate to a bigger one. Zero made the argument on Tuesday, that it *is*
big enough. If the bits which are supposed to be used to mark UUID type are
enough to push the UUID space too small, then.. we need a bigger bit space.
On Nov 29, 2007 1:25 AM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:
> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> > On 28-Nov-2007, at 16:41, Lawson English wrote:
> >> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> >>> On 28-Nov-2007, at 13:59, Lawson English wrote:
> >>>> The issue MAY be an issue once the meta-grid goes operational.
> >>>> You'll have to make sure everyone is using your version of UUIDs or
> >>>> asset-collisions might arise when moving from grid to grid.
> >>> Unless someone has changed things recently, I believe that the
> >>> intent is for externally-visible assets to be presented as URIs, not
> >>> UUIDs.
> >> Unless I misunderstand, the CAP for a given asset will be roughly of
> >> the form: server_URL:port/cap/asset/UUID.
> >> Where UUID is the current asset UUID
> > (note, I'm using 'domain' in the generic sense of a set of systems and
> > resources with a single responsible control)
> > The mapping from the internal UUID to an external URL will have to be
> > handled on a per-domain basis. Asset references between domains will
> > need to be handled by passing a URL out of the domain, and mapping
> > that URL if needed into a domain's internal ID model. There can not be
> > any assumptions about the meaning of the URL received from another
> > domain... it's got to be treated as an opaque token.
> > If you're accessing http://asset_server:port/cap/asset/UUID and the
> > asset doesn't belong to that server, it's gotta return something like
> > 302 Remote asset
> > Location: http://otherguy:theirport/some/opaque/path/and/id
> > And the asset server AND you can't make any assumptions about what
> > "/some/opaque/path/and/id" means.
> What if there is a collission between the UUIDs of two different
> domains? Unless you have the entire cap as the new asset ID, there will
> be collisions. I guess, at some point before the meta-grid goes live,
> asset-wise, LL will need to replace all LL-specific UUIDs with
> llDomain_URL caps. Guess that would actually work out fine, come to
> think of it, and should be trivial to implement.
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SLDev