On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> My current thinking is that we should have some relatively large
> limit....maybe on the order of 64k? It seems like it'd be very difficult to
> hit such a limit with any sort of legitimate use case, and the chances of
> some subtle data-dependent error would be much less. But a 1GB key is just
> not going to work well in any implementation (if it doesn't simply oom the
> process!). So despite what I said earlier, I guess I think we should have
> some limit...but keep it an order of magnitude or two larger than what we
> expect any legitimate usage to hit just to keep the system as flexible as
> possible.
>
> Does that sound reasonable to people?
Are we thinking about making this a MUST requirement, or a SHOULD? I'm
hesitant to spec an exact size as a MUST given how technology has a way
of changing in unexpected ways that makes old constraints obsolete. But
then, I may just be overly concerned about this too.
Cheers,
Shawn