On Wednesday 30 July 2003 23:06, Dave Hooper wrote: > 1. Use regular .zip because Java can do this natively
That is so far the most compelling argument for using it. I am not sure, however, if this convenience would outweigh the benefits of the improved compression ration. > 2. Sure, you ""could"" put the relevant classes that handle .tar and .bz2 > into freenet-ext.jar . But hey, if you did that, you're bundling. Know > what bundling means? Why would this be a problem? > 3. If you ARE going to bundle anything to improve performance then why > bother with bzip2? Why not just go the whole hog and use 7zip instead? 1) I have not seen any conclusive evidence that 7zip is actually better than bzip2. Can you provide a benchmark between 7zip and tar.bzip2? 2) I have not yet seen a Java 7zip library available. > 4. USE REGULAR .ZIP BECAUSE JAVA CAN DO THIS NATIVELY I understand where you are coming from, and at the moment I am fairly evenly split between considering zip vs bzip2. The reason for going bzip2 would be more of a forward facing one. CPU power and memory size increases faster than bandwidth, which means that the potential performance penalties in the long term might be less signifficant than the data size reduction benefits. Gordan _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
