From: Tobias D. <tob...@gm...> - 2006-09-25 11:27:33
|
hi, because of the automation-support and all that stuff (plugins saving their= =20 sample-data using base64 etc.), MMP-files have grown *a lot* in the past=20 month. The first thing I did was changing the behaviour of mmp-class to sav= e=20 the XML-files without any indentation at all. This way we can save=20 approximately 25-30% of space. But when compressing the files with gzip (or= =20 another comparable application) it gets shrinked down to 5%! We could=20 introduce "mmpz"-files which are files whose xml-representation was=20 compressed using qCompress(). What do you think about that? toby |
From: dieEasy <di...@ch...> - 2006-09-25 12:48:27
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tobias Doerffel ha scritto: > hi, > > because of the automation-support and all that stuff (plugins saving their > sample-data using base64 etc.), MMP-files have grown *a lot* in the past > month. The first thing I did was changing the behaviour of mmp-class to save > the XML-files without any indentation at all. This way we can save > approximately 25-30% of space. But when compressing the files with gzip (or > another comparable application) it gets shrinked down to 5%! We could > introduce "mmpz"-files which are files whose xml-representation was > compressed using qCompress(). What do you think about that? > > toby > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel maybe that way we can preserve indentation that can be useful in debugging.. some tabs should not affect gzipped size in a relevant manner.. I'm for gzipped project files! my 2 cents - -- ...all is relative, so don't think you're on the right side... Italiano - http://www.no1984.org/ English - http://www.againsttcpa.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFF8/+rnmd9s7SIGsRAnQxAKCJrWf7ubb9tVouJ2HRsSrqNg/CJACg2PMx k8EV67PTcve0x89XPFwIqHk= =PMv7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: C. S. A. <cs...@cs...> - 2006-09-25 13:19:34
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, dieEasy wrote: > maybe that way we can preserve indentation that can be useful in > debugging.. some tabs should not affect gzipped size in a relevant > manner.. > I'm for gzipped project files! I'd be surprised if any of the indentation affected gzipped size much -- gzipping should allow restoring the indentation and keeping the unzipped file as readable as possible. Another option is to go the OpenOffice route and write a .zip file; that way the binary data can be split into separate files (bundled into the zip) which ought to make the xml even more readable (less inline "garbage"). But that would be a much more invasive change. --scott ( http://cscott.net/ ) |