200 character channel name limit

[Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko]

So let me get this straight, you are complaining because the Hybrid IRCD 
team made your life slightly more difficult?

*plays the little violin for you*

I believe Joan said it best...

--
ln -s /etc/passwd ~/.core; ping localhost &; killall -11 ping
--
Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Rachel Llorenna wrote:

> And as mentioned, it does make a database technician's work slightly
> more difficult.
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:47:06 -0500 (EST), Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko
> <esoteric at teardrop.ca> wrote:
>> Based on that logic we might as well limit those 255 character file names
>> to 63 because only a few people actually use legitimate file names of said
>> length and we prefer to be selfishly restrictive based our own ideals.
>>
>> Alas the world does not revolve around a single individual and
>> specifications define a set of requirements to hopefully satisfy a range
>> of individuals.  The argument "there is no need to support ridiculous
>> values" is highly relative.
>>
>> In an ideal world there would be no such limitations imposed on the
>> individuals of a network, within reason.  The definition would be highly
>> dynamic.  The problem with such configurations is that assigning dynamic
>> memory is an annoying efficiency issue to programmers.
>>
>> As for the jab at the 512 character limit imposed by the RFC, I personally
>> don't see people typing over 100 character lines on a consistent basis,
>> and even then most *good* IRC clients (like Icarus) are intelligent enough
>> to break up the line into sections according to the RFC imposed limit not
>> impacting the user at all.
>>
>> --
>> ln -s /etc/passwd ~/.core; ping localhost &; killall -11 ping
>> --
>> Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Rachel Llorenna wrote:
>>
>>> While I fully understand that we would want to follow traditions and
>>> RFC specifications as much as possible, I'm not sure it's terribly
>>> useful to have such a high limit, when few people actually
>>> legitimately use channels of that length. It certainly makes making a
>>> MySQL table that much more difficult, since it has to be a (huge)
>>> VARCHAR column.
>>>
>>> It only has its minor bit of geek appeal and nothing more; I'm sure
>>> even Wohali wouldn't be using that channel for normal
>>> conversation/etc, although I do not know that for a fact. After all,
>>> would it not effectively reduce the length of messages, as per the 512
>>> character limit imposed by RFC 1459?
>>>
>>> It's as scary and useless as having excessively long (30 characters?!
>>> *pokes Unreal IRCd/Bahamut*) nicknames, though I suppose it doesn't
>>> affect ircd developers.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:37:18 -0500, Joan Sarah Touzet <joant at ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Rachel,
>>>>
>>>> I think the answer is "tradition."  There's no specifically good reason,
>>>> and if you prefer a different limit on your network, then go for it.
>>>>
>>>> EFNet presently has a 200 character limit; do a /whois Wohali to see a
>>>> channel that makes use of all 200 characters.
>>>>
>>>> -Joan
>>>>
>>>> Thus spake Rachel Llorenna (rachies at gmail.com):
>>>>> Why exactly did the developers feel it necessary to set the channel
>>>>> name length limit to 200 characters, when realistically, few people
>>>>> exceed 20 characters for channel names (and that's being generous)?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rachel Llorenna (frequency)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rachel Llorenna (frequency)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
>
> Rachel Llorenna (frequency)
>
>