Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A470D0AE for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 75670 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jun 2012 20:04:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75650 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jun 2012 20:04:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75641 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jun 2012 20:04:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:04:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of brian.leroux@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.175] (HELO mail-yx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.213.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:04:45 +0000 Received: by yenl13 with SMTP id l13so4767114yen.6 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=EZ5AdEQWy/+rO6mr+R5X/VnNFWzye3T1fkI25E5RsVQ=; b=cy59aM5WeTdyQFr8/idA72iL7f58y0kLEzZl/L3TF/cgzbsfFBtbFTb9tWzQU+ic6s kRaXZF2xxFG3+Ryy37/AQYVhD7jh+yXLdGeIXZnqDxMjGcIivW9kxdKch1MWpb+fwsYs NFiJ2dsmw1dUnEz0Elh+59cvRK7u4czzeRAJd1O8F/BqmUdyxQKU+6F8TMYdDdT6bA3J X9IqG+k6sb4berPN88AeUxTgZb/HijO0zGeyVgJGy4vKrrXeEJSm/Ar8AOYZSV4WeRqQ 81KqXcqEECyZQq1KyutHh30Yfu82W54hPa31WFBATds+zH4BKpUbv1pD9MQhYSgLjnZS xnNg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.181.232 with SMTP id dz8mr2496859igc.36.1340136263932; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: brian.leroux@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.53.197 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:04:23 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GsKacxSxI_wb0gD9rkRaTyP-RnQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: UUID on other platforms From: Brian LeRoux To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ya for sure cookies tend to get used that way. Really they are a persistence mechanism and any value in them is...well, any value you want, like say, a guid! =) Still think this is an app developer concern and good candidate for removal within the scope of the vision. Many apps dont even need this capability. (At first) On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jesse wrote: > uuid is essentially to identify an application install on a particular > device. > It makes sense in an installed app context, though not in a web-app context. > The web-app comparison would probably be cookies, which do not work > consistently across devices. > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> > ...the more things we simply offload to call 'app >> > developer concerns' the less anyone will need our framework. IMHO this >> > would be pursuing the 'cease to exist' mantra from the wrong direction. >> >> how so? should we be advocating adding a unique identifier to web >> browser apis? (don't think it'll get much traction!) >> > > > > -- > @purplecabbage > risingj.com