Maybe,You Can try to short the URI by some service like this one;
> Short URL is a Wordpress plugin that allows you to take a long URL
> such as:
>
> http://www.harleyquine.com/downloads/php-scripts/somefile.zip
>
> and turn it into:
> http://www.harleyquine.com/u/1
there are lots of this kind o
I don't think that'll help. :(
I'm trying to ensure uniqueness... so if two people try to add the
same URL, there will only be one entry in the datastore. I don't
think there's any guarantee that tinyurl/etc would provide that
uniqueness constraint.
Also, there will be a pretty decent volume of
2008/10/2 Tony Arkles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I don't think that'll help. :(
>
> I'm trying to ensure uniqueness... so if two people try to add the
> same URL, there will only be one entry in the datastore. I don't
> think there's any guarantee that tinyurl/etc would provide that
> uniqueness co
Maybe,your should have a look at the project calling "appengine-
utitlies"
http://code.google.com/p/appengine-utitlies/
>>
>>
>> These are a collection of classes to be used for rapid development
>> using Google App Engine.
>>
>> This starts with the session class which Joe Bowman wrote for a
Ahhh... sigh. :)
I was hoping to avoid doing that. It certainly adds a layer of
complexity that I was hoping to avoid.
On Oct 2, 10:49 am, "José Oliver Segura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/2 Tony Arkles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > I don't think that'll help. :(
>
> > I'm trying to e
> Then I think your only solution is to do it yourself (the
> "tinyurl" service), assuring uniqueness. Basically, you "only" need to
> mix datastore simple Gets with hashtable behaviour (taking care and
> assuming that two different urls, despite rare, can result in the same
> hash key). Yo
Yeah, it's tough either way.
I'm fine with just discarding urls that exceed 500 characters (that
was my first solution), although I agree that the key space is
probably large enough that hash collisions would be highly unlikely.
On Oct 2, 12:31 pm, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Th
On Oct 2, 2:31 pm, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems like the SHA hashes are overkill.
Collisions have been found for both sha0 and md5.
I guess the minimal usable hash function is sha1 for now. In python
hashlib uses openssl which should be reasonable fast.
--~--~-~--~~---
I don't think a *secure* hash function is necessary here (nor do I
think it desirable, due to speed). By the pigeonhole principle, *all*
hashes have collisions; it's just a matter of a) how likely it is to
happen, and b) how much of an impact will it have.
For doing a hashtable implementation (w
The problem is that a hand written python hash function not likely
outperform secure hash function implemented in c.
This kind attack actually happened once on amazon's s3 service, which
caused about 2 hours partial service interruption.
On Oct 2, 4:43 pm, Tony Arkles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Ahhh, leveraging the fact that the secure hashes are written in C
would definitely improve things.
Do you have a link to any info about the S3 hash problem? A quick
search didn't turn anything up.
On Oct 2, 3:28 pm, yejun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that a hand written python ha
It's in feb this year. Amazon s3 use hmac-sha1 for request
authentication.
See the last post for details.
http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/thread.jspa?threadID=19714&start=75&tstart=0
On Oct 2, 5:56 pm, Tony Arkles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahhh, leveraging the fact that the se
unfortunately, app engine doesn't support native (ie C-based) python
modules:
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/purepython.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To
I just tested this on GAE.
import hashlib
hashlib.sha224("Nobody inspects the spammish repetition").hexdigest()
They are working properly.
On Oct 2, 8:14 pm, ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> unfortunately, app engine doesn't support native (ie C-based) python
> modules:
>
> http://code.google.
ah, sorry for the miscommunication. i wasn't paying attention and
thought people were discussing a third-party C-based module. you're
right, the built-in modules in that list are definitely supported.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are s
For a summary of the C-based modules that are available, check out
http://code.google.com/appengine/kb/libraries.html
On Oct 2, 6:14 pm, ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> unfortunately, app engine doesn't support native (ie C-based) python
> modules:
>
> http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/py
16 matches
Mail list logo
