On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:19:57PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > so that the size advantage of the decoder doesn't matter too much. I > don't mind a fast compressor for streaming applications, but those > should exist and named as such.
Well, certainly I named some of mine. I can't check my existing main use of lzf into the tree, which is why I didn't check lzf itself in until another developer asked me to. > Even than it should at least be somewhat > justified to use a non-standard, ad-hoc algorithm (compared to deflate). By no means is "deflate" a "fast compressor for streaming applications", because it's not "fast". It's about 1/4 the speed of lzf at best. My personal opinion is that the threshold for adding something very small (5K max on any platform I can find) to our tree should be correspondingly low, while the threshold for adding something larger should be, of course, correspondingly high. If this were 150K, 300K, etc. I'd proceed with a lot more caution. Thor
