Hash stability

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Sun Jan 15 11:13:01 EST 2012

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Heiko Wundram <modelnine at modelnine.org> wrote:
> I don't know the prevalence of suds, but I guess there's more people than me
> using it to query SOAP-services - all of those will be affected if the
> hash() output is changed. Additionally, if hash() isn't stable between runs
> (the randomized hash() solution which is preferred, and would also be my
> preference), suds caching becomes completely useless. And for the results,
> see above.

Or you could just monkey-patch it so that 'hash' points to an old
hashing function. If the current hash() is kept in builtins as (say)
hash_320() or hash_272() or something, then anyone who wants the old
version of the hash can still get it.

Of course, it's still dodgy to depend on the stability of something
that isn't proclaimed stable, and would be far better to use some
other hashing algorithm (MD5 or SHA for uberreliability).


More information about the Python-list mailing list