Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> Rahul Thakur wrote:
>>>> 'int' ids are now converted to 'long' across the project and to
>>>> allow really large values. This should cater to scenarios where the
>>>> id generation could be started from an arbitrary large value.
>>>
>>> Won't this break the API?
>>
>> Yep, it would.
>>
>>>
>>> What is the use case where 4 billion IDs isn't sufficient?
>>
>> 2 billion you mean :-). But this also more of something that I have
>> noticed 'traditionally' that ids are specified as long and stored as
>> bigints in database
>
> No, 4 billion. an int is +-2billion. Anyway, just because longs are
> more traditionally used that is not a good enough reason to switch to
> longs and break the API to me.
Yep, I know, I was referring to the +ve 2 billions. I could say a case
where Id generation could be set to start from a fairly large value and
so are the Id sequence increments. One could argue this is an edge case
;-).
IMHO the version change to 1.1 is a fair indication that the API might
have changed. Having said that, I will go with whatever most of us think
sounds practical :-)
Cheers,
Rahul
>
> --
> Trygve
>
|