Re: What's in a name? Let's use a (uuid,name,email) triplet
- From
Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 18, 2010, 18:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b4087cc51003181157i7c8b46favb52d4ccda75be799@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpq8w9po4az.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 13:47, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> What's the added value of the "SHA-1" thing, here? A hash of a pair > (a, b) is exactly as unique as the pair itself (well, actually even a > bit less if you consider collisions).
Your observation is correct, but I'm pushing for the SHA-1 string because it could be efficiently parsed, stored, and used; it's essentially an optimization (or a preparation for an optimization).
If that's not a good way to approach it, then I'd be satisifed with just a straight (name,email) pair or any other reasonably unique string.
On a more general note, the idea of a uuid is to distribute the process of canonicalizing identities. Does that not make perfect sense?