21–30 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A coworker mentioned that multidexing also take ages and uses huge amounts of memory.
Are there any legitimate use cases for that many methods?
65535 tcp-ports ought to be enough for anybody [1]
65534 hardlinks ought to be enough for anybody [2]
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/113224/what-is-the-larges...
[2] http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5629/is-there-a-limi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A coworker mentioned that multidexing also take ages and uses huge amounts of memory.
Are there any legitimate use cases for that many methods?
That said, you can use proguard to strip your unused methods and it usually fine even for large applications.
Any time you have a 16-bit count, it won't be enough. It's a dangerous size...
The same is true of 32 bit numbers. 64 bits might finally be enough. crosses fingers
And for counts 64 bits should be enough, since it's 20 billion billion.
Also: 65535 tcp-ports ought to be enough for anybody [1] 65534 hardlinks ought to be enough for anybody [2] [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/113224/what-is-the-larges... [2] http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5629/is-there-a-limi...
If you want to hide a port from being probed then give it a GUID as a name. No more port scans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same is true of 32 bit numbers. 64 bits might finally be enough. crosses fingers
Well, for counts 32 bits is enough, unless you count something really small, like every individual byte in something. And for counts 64 bits should be enough, since it's 20 billion billion.
Also: 65535 tcp-ports ought to be enough for anybody [1] 65534 hardlinks ought to be enough for anybody [2] [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/113224/what-is-the-larges... [2] http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5629/is-there-a-limi...
Also: 65535 tcp-ports ought to be enough for anybody [1] 65534 hardlinks ought to be enough for anybody [2] [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/113224/what-is-the-larges... [2] http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5629/is-there-a-limi...
Also: 65535 tcp-ports ought to be enough for anybody [1] 65534 hardlinks ought to be enough for anybody [2] [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/113224/what-is-the-larges... [2] http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5629/is-there-a-limi...
I find it extremely awkward that we actually use numbers for ports. Port 80 is typically used for HTTP, but there's nothing preventing another application from using port 80. Why not call the port "HTTP" instead. Better yet why not give it an integer range of ports to go along with the naming - Eg MyApp[1], MyApp[2]. If you want to hide a port from being probed then give it a GUID as a name. No more port scans.
Of course, current TCP has 16-bit ports hard coded. But IPv6 has almost unlimited addresses.
For some reason, SRV records are not in wide spread use.