On Friday 01 August 2003 10:19 pm, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > I vote for D: Scrap the idea. > > > > Let clients do it if they wish, and let clients deal with the problems if > > they wish. The benefits to Freenet won't be much. The amount of > > compressible content in Freenet is surely not that great. > > Then why not A? That does yeald improvement, and is very non invasive.
I should probably clarify that. It COULD be all done client side, but if you want containers, their has to be one standard for fproxy to use. If you want to be sure everything is compressed, then you need to do it at a lower level. Adding zipping into Freenet is easy because it is built in to java. By my (poor) guess, it would take like 20 LOC to simply detect the mimetype and then compress if we want, with no other changes. I think we should take the next step and do B (see previous message). I say this because there already exists a standard easy to use interface for tar. http://www.trustice.com/java/tar/ http://www.gjt.org/servlets/JCVSlet/list/ice/com/ice/tar/ Just grab the .java files, include them in Fproxy and/or your insertion utility, and your done. It is a wrapper for InputStream/OutputStream so it wouldn't require other changes. _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
