Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have some limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a while...
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:32:09PM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote: > >> > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > >> > > >> > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > >> > names > >> > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer > >> > filenames? > >> > >> If you mean just for filenames, that should do, I would think. But if > >> you're talking about complete pathnames, then no, I'd suggest at least > >> doubling that figure. > > > >I agree with this one. I have seen path/file exceed 256 with nasty results - > >it was with a backup system. > > on my system i've no problems breaking the 400 border for full > path+filename... -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20051025/e50af90a/attachment.pgp>
