On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Andrey Andreev <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > - hash_bits_per_character will be removed from the RFC.
>> > - Possible issue with ID length change will be documented.
>> > - "id_length" will be removed. User should use hash index search.
>> > - Raise error when hash function is not available.
>>
>> I'd be happy with that, yes. :)
>> Although for hash_bits_per_character, I only insisted the RFC to
>> explain that this is a change complementing hash_function.
>
>
> OK. I'll document it.
>
>> >
>> > Raising error seems not good...
>> > If hash extension is available always, it might be easier for other
>> > module,
>> > too.
>> > Do not allow DL/disabling hash extension, perhaps?
>>
>>
>> I see no reason why anybody would want to disable the Hash extension,
>> so sure - I'd remove that choice.
>
>
> I agree. It will be added to the RFC.
>
>>
>> However, silent fallback for stuff like this is never a good thing and
>> somebody might i.e. make a typo while configuring, so why not raise
>> E_WARNING for invalid hash_function regardless?
>
>
> Make sense to me, too.
> I'll make it raise error for any invalid hashes.
>
> Thank you for your help :)
Well, I'm glad we finally sorted it out.
Although this was all my personal input, somebody else might disagree
on the non-disableable ext/hash. :)
Cheers,
Andrey.