Re: Anyone planning a compression library?

From: jeff_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-02-15 21:24:07

>  >I would like to point out that the full boost_all.zip is already 
>2 MB
>  >compressed (500 KB of which are JPEGs of developers) and the Info-
ZIP
>  >stuff adds another 200 KB compressed.
>  >
>  >Compare that to the full Linux 2.0.30 kernel, which is only 6 MB.

As much as I enjoy them, it sounds like the developer pictures should 
be eliminated.

> So what's the solution?  We really don't want to reinvent the wheel.

Well, I hate to change my mind on this issue, but while looking at 
the zlib page I realized there are binary libraries available for 
windows and other platforms.  Thus since we were already headed to 
the idea of reusing it without modification, I am thinking we 
shouldn't bundle source since binaries/sources are so readily 
available.  As was pointed out earlier it is also trivial to build.

> For the compression section, there would be one additional link 
(with 
> explanation of why) that downloads the zlib distribution from their 
ftp 
> site.

Yep.  Makes sense.

> Presumably part of the formal review for any library that depends 
on a 
> non-Boost library would include pros and cons of the dependency.  
Thus 
> there is a protection against a detrimental dependency on a non-
boost 
> library, but a mechanism to avoid reinventing the wheel if linking 
to 
> another library really is the smart thing to do. 

Makes sense to me.  It is clearly a judgment which needs to be 
evaluated on a case by case basis.  Perhaps the policy should be 
updated to say something like: Use of external libraries is generally 
discouraged.  However, given compatible licensing policies, broad 
availability, and demonstration of needless reinvention of stable 
code exceptions can be made.

Jeff