Re: Strange failure [Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender]

[Meskauskas Audrius]

Hello, Mark,

XOR maybe also would be good enough, but the hashcode method is called 
very seldom for this class. It is not involved into the main 
functionality and is only needed in some very specific cases like 
verifying the client identity. Hence the execution speed may not matter 
very much; I have chosed Adler as more reliable.

Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi Audrius,
>
> Just tried to sent this message, but it bounced. Trying from my other
> email address now. Any idea why this is happening?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
> From:
> Mail Delivery System <address@hidden>
> Date:
> Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:10:20 +0100
> To:
> address@hidden
>
> To:
> address@hidden
>
>
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
>  address@hidden
>    SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<address@hidden>:
>    host mxbw.bluewin.ch [195.186.18.144]: 550 RCPT TO:<address@hidden> Relaying 
> not allowed
>
> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
>
> Return-path: <address@hidden>
> Received: from elsschot.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.26])
>         by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
>         id 1EiBbn-0008L9-00; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:09:55 +0100
> Subject: Re: [cp-patches] FYI: Fixes in org.omg.CORBA.Object._is_equivalent.
> From: Mark Wielaard <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: "_ PATCHES address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>
> References: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; 
> boundary="=-UM7aozFctzAkjF67KfYe"
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:11:18 +0100
> Message-Id: <address@hidden>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 
>
>
> --=-UM7aozFctzAkjF67KfYe
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Hi Audrius,
>
> Going through some older patches.
>
> On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 14:24 +0100, Meskauskas Audrius wrote:
>  
>
> > +  /**
> > +   * Get the hashcode of this IOR.
> > +   */
> > +  public int hashCode()
> > +  {
> > +    Adler32 adler =3D new Adler32();
> > +    if (key !=3D null)
> > +      adler.update(key);
> > +    if (Internet !=3D null && Internet.host !=3D null)
> > +      adler.update(Internet.host.getBytes());
> > +
> > +    return (int) adler.getValue();
> >   }
> >    
>
> You often use the result of an Adler32 checksum as hashCode() value.
> Wouldn't it be more efficient to just simply xor the relevant fields? In
> the followup patch you also correctly add the port number so in this
> case it would be:
>
> public int hashCode()
> {
>  int hash =3D 0;
>  if (key !=3D null)
>    for (int i =3D 0; i < key.length; i++)
>      hash ^=3D key[i];
>  if (Internet !=3D null && Internet.host !=3D null)
>    {
>      byte[] bs =3D Internet.host.getBytes();
>      for (int i =3D 0; i < bs.length; i++)
>        hash ^=3D bs[i];
>      hash ^=3D Internet.port;
>    }
>  return hash;
> }
>
> Which seems more efficient. But maybe that isn't a good enough hash
> function in this case and maybe using Adler32 isn't that much overhead.
> Just wondering why you use it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> --=-UM7aozFctzAkjF67KfYe
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBDkFYGxVhZCJWr9QwRArLPAKCMfJbPTKy4tXFDruQ2mLAedTnKoQCfXeqv
> NbZH7UqgoLhglO1GCqo3+Fo=
> =8d4R
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --=-UM7aozFctzAkjF67KfYe--
>
>
>
>