Hi Maurice,
On 2021-04-14 12:17:02, you wrote to me:
WvV>> It should take into account it can be called multiple times
WvV>> within the same second.
MK> Sure. How about this?
MK> 6076da69-1689a348
MK> 6076da69-16bf0244
MK> ...
It doesn't conform to the standard.
WvV>> If you do that correctly, it's superior to the random one...
MK> See above but just for fun I will do it side by side just like before.
MK> 6076e0bd-22d50e70 n3yM8uFm
MK> 6076e0bd-246302d4 sL4Irxdg
MK> 6076e0bd-25d0d1f0 8fq4vU7e
MK> 6076e0bd-276236a4 Aez4QZog
MK> 6076e0bd-28f6291c jbQiqKYc
MK> 6076e0bd-2a842704 gElrH3UT
MK> 6076e0bd-2bf24d98 8qmyLLQR
MK> 6076e0bd-2d8103dc Pbeaul1Z
MK> 6076e0bd-2f0436d0 IHsKacHr
MK> 6076e0bd-30a01b60 0An6jRkx
MK> My best guesstimation is that the random one is superior given that it
MK> doesn't require a rewrite of current FTN standards.
It doesn't conform to the standard either...
MK> However I do plan to change that and then for sure the unixtime based
MK> one will be superior and unique for all time, nevermind 3 lousy years.
I suggest you don't waist your time on fighting to get the existing standard
changed. It's wasted energy.
If you want a better unique identifier in ftn messages, create a new kludge
(see my suggestion for the @UUID one, which needs a @RUID btw for replies), so
you can do what you want, and make it as good as possible without having to
consider existing software. Then write a proposal and convince software
developers to implement it in their software.
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
|
