UDP API DEV: Difference between revisions

::: Well, enforcing uniqueness in the db brings a slight performanc overhead with it, but as file additions are a very seldom event, that wouldn't hurt us. We'd have a couple of extra indicies on the file table, which would increase the storage requirements of the db. Though even that wouldn't be all that much. Supporting MD5 hashes on the UDP API might simplyfy the writing of very simple UDP clients, as there are easily available MD5 libraries for every programming language out there. For ed2k/md4 libs you might have to search for a bit. However, I think I wouldn't go as far as to enforce uniqueness for all our hashes (i.e. sha1 and tth). But it might be seriously worth considering enforcing MD5 uniqueness, especially if we might somday drop ed2k hashes. MD5 hashes would offer a nice fallback in such a case. [[User:Exp|Exp]] 08:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: Agreed. Even better, since hashes are only being used for identification and checksumming, and not authentication, there's no real need for uniqueness other than the 1 in several trillion chance of a collision. The odds get even better with SHA1 or Tiger or RIPEMD. ed2k is not exactly a standard hash, and MD4 is simply not present in some languages, unless you obtain an external library. (For example, I bundle a native Python MD4 with my client, since that library is rare outside of Linux distributions.) [[User:Billessig|Billessig]] 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== Mylist Commands ==