We are just using zip compression on eBible.org.
On 11/02/2016 09:45 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> I can categorically say that there are no released CW modules using any
> compression other than zip. There might be some in our experimental repo. But
> they would not be released so.
>
> I would
I still suggest to have full versification definition with mappings and all
related information in a single file.
JSword format isn't good for me because of it is divided to two files and CSV
format is not enough serious for long term.
http://www.ccel.org/refsys/refsys.html is good for me.
If memory serves, XZ and BZip2 only made it into 1.7 because I goofed.
Working with branches in SVN is such a travesty that it led to a few
accidental commits moved from trunk to the release branch despite not being
intended as such. This is why I've been reluctant to make further releases
on 1.7,
Experimental in the sense that there is no use found for them at this moment.
We will not publish any modules until there is a) consensus and b) a valid
preferential use case over the existing system.
Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity and typos.On 3 Nov 2016 1:52 pm, DM
Smith
lzss is an early compression supported by SWORD and JSword. There is no need,
other than policy, to refrain from using it.
xz and bzip2 are fully supported by JSword. But not all frontends in the wild
have it.
I worked with Chris Little on both xz and bzip2 support. Him adding it to SWORD
I think the original rationale for the three experimental compression methods
was to find something most suitable for limited resources devices. Given that
my current phone has 100+ times RAM, 64 times HD equivalent space and 20 times
the processor speed than the first desktop computer on which
The other two are not in use either.
Re removing/keeping, ask Troy, that is his responsibility. Mine is to keep the
modules sane.
Peter
Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity and typos.On 3 Nov 2016 7:57 am, Jaak
Ristioja wrote:
>
> Thanks you, Peter! Ok, so XzCompress
Hi TS.
They were the same once. Both started out in the MacSword app.
Then they were extracted from MacSword and made it’s own project which found
the home in the bindings/objc folder of the SWORD source tree.
Nic decided to not use the files bindings/objc but his own fork.
And myself maintained
Thanks you, Peter! Ok, so XzCompress is experimental and the most common
ZipCompress is considered stable. But what about LZSSCompress and
Bzip2Compress?
Will the experimental compression methods be removed from stable Sword
releases in the future?
J
On 03.11.2016 09:45, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
I can categorically say that there are no released CW modules using any
compression other than zip. There might be some in our experimental repo. But
they would not be released so.
I would think the same can be confirmed rapidly with all other official repos,
Xiphos, IBT and eBible. I am
I just tried `./configure && make` Sword 1.7.4 and it did compile in
xzcomprs.cpp. So I guess the stable releases DO include the experimental
code.
Usually it helps when experimental features have their own feature
branches or similar. This not being a common practice in the Sword
project, is
It seems that PocketSword was based on svn-head snapshots instead of releases.
Bear in mind that svn-head is development code. The releases are in the release
branch. Right now head has at least 6 header files which are not in release and
3 of which might never make it. There are the latex
Leaving aside the question of a bug, xzcompress.cpp is experimental code. It is
not included in any releases so far AFAIK and should not be compiled into
releases or used by frontends.
At least under autotools you need to ask to include it.
We have no modules created with it and would
13 matches
Mail list logo