Hi Yasuo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:yohg...@ohgaki.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:35 AM > To: Anatol Belski <anatol....@belski.net> > Cc: Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>; Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com>; > Leigh <lei...@gmail.com>; PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Improve uniqid() uniqueness >
> I think you and Joe could not follow the discussion. It's okay, reading them > all is > waste of your time. I read all, but I'm not sure if I understand/remember all > of > them well. > We all have own things, yes. I've checked the early messages in this thread, and checked the latest now, and checked the patch as well. Calling it waste of time is not correct. I just happen to manage 7.0, so I have to jump into such situations. My task in such case is to moderate the process, to hopefully help to reach the a common decision. > IMHO Oppositions for the patch is based on _wrong_ assumption that "new > uniqid() causes common enough errors to be an issue". This wrong assumption is > the reason why my commit became an issue, I presume. > > Could you reconsider decision based on _wrong_ assumption? > I don't think the opinions should be ignored. The sense of discussion is to clear out all possible issues and to improve the approach, not doing as assumptions ping-pong. The actual issue is, that it was commited while the concerns was not cleared out and the discussion didn't reach a common opinion. Also, where Davey asked you already at some early stage to go by an RFC, the merge into 7.0 was somewhat sudden. > > P.S. I'm a bit tired of uniqid() discussion because I expected this is easy > one. > This - unique id (time stamp) + entropy (timestamp based entropy) - is > obviously > wrong for today's PHP. Speaking about broken - there's always some acceptance criteria. Like you might know in physics, uncertainty analysis, some result is always given with +/- inaccuracy. It is applicable to anything measurable, thus to uniqid() as well. What you say, is that the acceptance criteria is now changed, and the result needs to be more accurate. From the other side, there are voices telling the result is still acceptable. > I won't have time to write RFC for this, probably. I have many other things > that I > would like to improve, like session error status handling improvement that I > recently proposed. > I see. It's a pity you won't have time to write an RFC. I see one already in place on the wiki though. I see also your several other patches hanging on gihtub. IMHO it is a real waste of time to abandon the work you've done, without really pulling it through. With uniqid(), maybe it'd be even the right decision to return to your original RFC, or just to reduce it to comply with the simple patch variant. I'm sure, that no one wants to lose the good contributions, even though it might take some effort to reach the common ground sometimes. Regards Anatol -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
