Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
I guess it's prolly quite alright. Although I also feel filthy even reading about it.
Instead I'd prolly have used a db sequence or a DB row ID, or a timestamp. If predictability is an issue - shuffle its bits in a predefined sequence, not losing any values. Eventual values will seem random, although definitely unique [because based on an always incrementing algo].
Related Rants
I think I laught too much about this!
At work thres a legacy "common" DLL, which held a helper function that's incharge of creating Slugs, it takes an MD5 of the current time stamp UTC, removing non-URLable chars, and taking the first N chars that remain then
Ngl I was impressed at first at it, but then I thought, its Uniqueness isnt guaranteed
But then again I thought, the uniqueness can be tested via a call given it's indexed anyway in DB so O(1), and if non-unique, just re-call the function. Even in the worst case scenario the hits won't be that many anyway
I didnt change the code, tho at first I was inclined to given my "it isnt proven-unique" stance but am wondering, if this is a good approach
While coolish, it seems wrong in the back of my mind somehow...
rant
md5
dilemma
slug