On Tuesday 04 February 2003 07:21 pm, Todd Walton wrote: > >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.
java.util.zip.GZIPInputStream and java.util.zip.GZIPOutputStream should handle the compression nicely. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
