As the Zip spec doesn’t forbid this case (I think), these Zip files are, in theory, okay. you might end up with multiple identical entries in the Zip, e.g. the exact same file name/path more than once in the same directory within the Zip. This is the case when multiple “from”'s are given which end up creating the same Filename at the same location within the resulting zip.
However, depending on how and where you try to extract them, you’ll end up with a whole slue or problems and errors.
however somewhere i think it might be handy when communicating between client and the server, if you know what you are doing, files can be generated from memory. Google drive for example allows many documents all named "Untitled Spreadsheet" or "Untitled Documents". As unique IDs were assigned to them on the server side, there was never a need to restrict the user like legacy file systems.
What would you say about loosing up this rule a bit and get rid of the duplicate rule, and put this responsibility upon the developer instead?
As the Zip spec doesn’t forbid this case (I think), these Zip files are, in theory, okay. you might end up with multiple identical entries in the Zip, e.g. the exact same file name/path more than once in the same directory within the Zip. This is the case when multiple “from”'s are given which end up creating the same Filename at the same location within the resulting zip.
However, depending on how and where you try to extract them, you’ll end up with a whole slue or problems and errors.
however somewhere i think it might be handy when communicating between client and the server, if you know what you are doing, files can be generated from memory. Google drive for example allows many documents all named "Untitled Spreadsheet" or "Untitled Documents". As unique IDs were assigned to them on the server side, there was never a need to restrict the user like legacy file systems.
What would you say about loosing up this rule a bit and get rid of the duplicate rule, and put this responsibility upon the developer instead?