On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote: > > Why not return the full 64bit ID in an opaque object? Maths and comparing > > IDs is meaningless anyway. > > Then we'd have to overload both the structured clone algorithm and the > == javascript operator. > > Even with 53 bits you can generate a new ID a million times a second > for 285 years. So I really don't think we need to worry. And if anyone > is still worrying then I'd say lets look at this in a hundred years or > so, at which point I suspect that javascript has grown support for > 64bit integers bringing us back to that half a million year limit :) > Any ID over 2^52ish is not useful though since you couldn't actually use it in JavaScript. We're simply saying that anything over 2^64 is disallowed to keep things simple. What's the difference with that and instead saying 2^52 is the limit? J
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 15:37:24 UTC