Has compression of files in Freenet been considered?
In a way, yes. There's another benefit of the compression scheme you suggest. If you're compressing you may as well archive, too.

The thing that came up previously was allowing freesite authors the ability to put all of their files into one tarball (or .jar or .zip or whatever). That way, if you retrieve the freesite you have the whole thing. If you go to retrieve something else on that freesite then *bickity-bam*, it's there. The sound effects are open for discussion, but that's the general idea. The unit of selection competing for datastore space becomes whole freesites instead of just parts and the browsing experience (it is supposed) will improve.

2.1) We care about supporting browsers thad don't support gzip

2.2) We DON'T care about browsers that don't support the gzip encoding.
It'd probably be chaos and unusability to leave it up to the browser. You never know (literally) where Freenet will be used. It'd be nice to know that if you needed Freenet and you had only a weak browser that you could still do it.

-Todd


_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech


Reply via email to