Possible extension of v1 UUIDs

[ctavan]

Possible extension of v1 UUIDs

[broofa]

Christoph, let me think about this. My initial reaction is that what you're proposing here seems like a special case of the "compose a UUID" problem, which may be better addressed by having a utility method that allows you to specify some/all of the fields defined in sect 4.1, and composes the UUID for you. (And writing that is probably non-trivial and likely to add significant code bloat.)

Let's leave this out of the v1 diff for now and wait until we've got some concrete examples of how people might need/use this before moving forward here.

[broofa]

[reopening in case others have thoughts on this]

I could see doing something like the following. Maybe. :) ...

function uuid([options[, buffer[, offset]]])

• options - options object, may contain...

{
  random: (Array)      // (v1/v4) random #'s to use instead of rnds
  format: (String),    // (v1/v4) equivalient to current 'fmt' argument,
  timestamp: (Number), // (v1) timestamp to use
  clockseq: (Number),  // (v1) clockseq to use
}

• buffer - Array/buffer to write into
• offset - offset into buffer to begin writing

Thoughts?

[ctavan]

Looks good to me. Especially since we don't have to break anything to make it work.

[pnegri]

Following this close. Keep good work.

[ctavan]

If we do this, we should allow specifying the node as well. Maybe somebody has access to the mac-address and really wants RFC compliant v1 uuids...

{
  random: (Array)      // (v1/v4) random #'s to use instead of rnds
  format: (String),    // (v1/v4) equivalient to current 'fmt' argument,
  timestamp: (Number), // (v1) timestamp to use (in UNIX epoch)
  clockseq: (Number),  // (v1) clockseq to use
  node: (Number) // (v1) node. it's a 48bit integer, so maybe we must use a byte-array?
}

Another thing: we measure times in UUID epoch throughout the lib now, but I think when specifying a timestamp as an option we must use UNIX-time to avoid confusion.

[ctavan]

I have added a pull request for this one, I think we can continue discussion there: #16

[pnegri]

about the node value i was thinking about using a byte replace in only node part at the client or util. trying to dont add boilerplate. but its great like that.

[broofa]

we must use UNIX-time to avoid confusion

agree.