Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - [ldappc-ng] request ids : doomdark uuid or ?

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

[ldappc-ng] request ids : doomdark uuid or ?

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Zeller <>
  • To: Grouper Dev <>
  • Subject: [ldappc-ng] request ids : doomdark uuid or ?
  • Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:53:31 -0500
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; b=FG6u/5lGLDSFo1tkqhod4yUDuB0eHarvvoJuCO44+3YJdTx1x8cNnZmHNvFrMJ3CYR dS7r0/nf4u04NMTuH6CLv5wSmBekzUVZPUTrBkH5LXdKmo2xqUIvF2Iq9yGnhMyb6EWA AdylxC2jr8xrQunBEKD4e4FHbcKXbPtJn4yS8=

I'm looking for suggestions regarding unique identifiers. Ldappc-ng
needs to generate a reasonably unique identifier for each (spml)
request/response operation.

The request id will be included, of course, in the request/response xml :

<ldappc:calcRequest requestID='X' ...>

To make log reading easier, I've also used MDC to add the request id
to each log entry written while processing a request :

2010-04-07 17:44:59,960: X [main] INFO PSP.execute -
2010-04-07 17:44:59,960: X [main] INFO PSP.execute -

I have tentatively coded timestamp+request/response hashcode as the
request id because I liked the inherent sorting of a unique identifier
that starts with a timestamp, e.g. :


A doomdark uuid looks like :


So, what do you think, should the request id be doomdark uuids or ?


  • [ldappc-ng] request ids : doomdark uuid or ?, Tom Zeller, 04/07/2010

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page