4 ms·

> That argument is only valid if your application doesn't touch disk and doesn't touch the network to go talk to some other service anyway. Why? Adding another

> That argument is only valid if your application doesn't touch disk and doesn't touch the network to go talk to some other service anyway. Why? Adding another source of “slowness”[1] isn’t free just because other sources of “slowness” already exist, especially if it’s already close to being unacceptably slow as it is. I mean, sure, if the request takes ten minutes anyway and the validation check takes a few seconds, nobody will notice, but if I’m doing, say, a single non-local database lookup for the request then adding a second one for verification doubles the time it takes to service the request. [1] I’m not saying that a network round trip and database lookup are slow, just that for the sake of this argument, they are being considered slow.

lvh 9y ago
Do you have specific performance data for a comparable token validation?
- dkersten 9y ago
  I’m not really arguing against your point, just pointing out that your statement isn’t necessarily true. You said that if you do any network or disk access then validation will be negligible as it would be dominated by that. I’m simply saying that while this is probably true in most real world cases, it may not be so if for example both validation and normal request handling do a simple database query, then validation is 50% of the request time (or 25% if the request takes twice as long etc). Since the person you were relying to above said something about performance sensitivity, this overhead could be too much. Having said that, I do believe that what you’re saying is the right approach for 99.9% of use cases and I would imagine that in almost all cases the performance hit really is negligible.
  - lvh 9y ago
    I gave specific examples of relative latency going the other direction in GP thread. But yes: not only is it not actually slow, it’s a much simpler engineering exercise to make it fast (see caching argument, same thread). Is it literally definitionally impossible that minted tokens have a useful application? No, of course not. But absent very specific cases I’m going to argue for the thing that’s safe, fast & simple :-D

lvh 9y ago

Do you have specific performance data for a comparable token validation?

dkersten 9y ago
I’m not really arguing against your point, just pointing out that your statement isn’t necessarily true. You said that if you do any network or disk access then validation will be negligible as it would be dominated by that. I’m simply saying that while this is probably true in most real world cases, it may not be so if for example both validation and normal request handling do a simple database query, then validation is 50% of the request time (or 25% if the request takes twice as long etc). Since the person you were relying to above said something about performance sensitivity, this overhead could be too much. Having said that, I do believe that what you’re saying is the right approach for 99.9% of use cases and I would imagine that in almost all cases the performance hit really is negligible.
- lvh 9y ago
  I gave specific examples of relative latency going the other direction in GP thread. But yes: not only is it not actually slow, it’s a much simpler engineering exercise to make it fast (see caching argument, same thread). Is it literally definitionally impossible that minted tokens have a useful application? No, of course not. But absent very specific cases I’m going to argue for the thing that’s safe, fast & simple :-D