Re: Extending uniqid() or not?

Hi all, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I think it would be good enough to have only uuid v4: >> >> function uuidv4() >> { >> $data = openssl_random_pseudo_bytes(16); // or whatever >> >> $data[6] = chr(ord($data[6]) & 0x0f | 0x40); // set version to 0010 >> $data[8] = chr(ord($data[8]) & 0x3f | 0x80); // set bits 6-7 to 10 >> >> return vsprintf('%s%s-%s-%s-%s-%s%s%s', str_split(bin2hex($data), 4)); >> } >> >> It's really just a representation of random data, whereby 6 bits are used >> for the actual format. >> > > I agree. > UUID v4 simply generate random ID and it is good for many purposes. > > My concern is portability. OpenSSL(or Mcrypt) is provided as module. > Users tends not to use module functions whenever possible. To address > this issue, OpenSSL could be a module compiled by default. > > Security matters for all applications. Compiling OpenSSL by default would > be nice to have. > > Any comments? > It seems consensus here is "Not to add new function" and "Improve documents". We are better to provide realistic alternative for application developers. I would like to write a RFC that makes openssl module a module compiled by default. Any comments for this? -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net