[izpack-users] Using Compression in Packs

[Bartz, Klaus]

Hi Hal,
may be there is an different behavior at web installations.
For this special case I have done nothing extra else I had
assumed that it uses the same base classes. 
If you has changed there something, please send the diff.

>And, while I'm at it, I've never used Jar files on Windows before.  Is 
>it just me, or are then not double clickable by default?  I'm going 
>have to add a batch file with the download for my clients 
>since most of 
>them get confused with right clicking or other methods that 
>aren't just 
>a double click to run something.  I'm also willing to bet this is a 
>Microsoft thing connected with the Sun/Microsoft feud.

I think, I have not really understand what you mean...
The double click action will be written by an installation of a
program which handles files with that extension. May be the default
for .jar is to call a VM with -jar. I prefer winzip because more
often I must look into a jar file as execute it with -jar and
no more params :-) Therefore double click operation is not 
always the same.
For execution I prefer also a batch file.


Cheers

Klaus

>-----Original Message-----
>From: izpack-users-admin at berlios.de
>[mailto:izpack-users-admin at berlios.de]On Behalf Of Hal Vaughan
>Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:45 PM
>To: izpack-users at berlios.de
>Subject: Re: [izpack-users] Using Compression in Packs
>
>
>On Thursday 04 May 2006 05:39, Bartz, Klaus wrote:
>> Hi,
>> last year I have implemented the compressor stuff.
>> At default we use the "normal" deflate compression of a jar file.
>> Our server installation will be compressed from ~700 MB to ~350 MB.
>> If nothing compresses, there is something wrong.
>
>By server installation, I take it you mean a web install?  Before I 
>asked this, I went to the xhtml doc directory and typed "grep -R 
>compress *" and got nothing about compiling.  This is on 3.8.1, the 
>same version Fabrice and I have been developing SimpleConfig and that 
>I've been developing some other panels on.
>
>I don't think I'm seeing compression, but I'll double check my 
>figures.  
>I've been operating on very little sleep lately, so it's possible I 
>mis-calculated while trying to work it out.  I thought my numbers were 
>accurate, but I'm the first to admit I could have messed up.
>
>> I have also seen at implementation time, that bzip2 is not much
>> better as deflate; 3 - 5 %. I do not know why. May be this is related
>> to the point that IzPack often used for java appls which contains
>> already comprest jar files.
>
>I'm not worried about that small an increase.  At this point, I'm 
>concerned about a 90 MB pack
>
>> I had played a little bit with LZMA (7zip); it was ~ 25 % better as
>> deflate. But up to know I have had no time to write a filter output
>> stream which compresses with LZMA.
>
>That's what I did for pack encryption -- I wrote another class that 
>handles the encryption/decryption work and it only took a few lines in 
>the packager and unpacker to call that class and wrap another 
>io stream 
>around the existing ones.  If a pack is not encrypted, it doesn't add 
>the extra stream.
>
>> The java impl of LZMA self is not filter output stream orientated.
>> In the current design of pack compression we cannot use the 7zip
>> classes. May be it will be possible to write a wrapper around the
>> classes which wrappes it to an filter output stream. LZMA will be
>> sometimes very slow (much slower as bzip2) at encoding...
>> If some one will do the work - to write an encoder as filter output
>> stream and an decoder as filter input stream using
>> interface com.izforge.izpack.compressor.PackCompressor
>> as integration wrapper - I will be very happy.
>
>I'd be interesting in taking a look at that later, but for now 
>I *have* 
>to get my program so it's working and so it can be easily installed.  
>Then I get my first break in several years and after a few 
>days, I have 
>to start on my last big project (I figure it'll take 2-8 weeks, 
>depending on a few factors).  When that's done and I've had time to 
>rest, I'll be able to look at a few other things.
>
>> Never heard of a compression which is reproducable 60% better as
>> deflate. Means not only for special cases used; e.g. CCITT T.6 is
>> better as deflate, (can be more than 60 %) if you compress a BW image
>> without noise, but at halftone images CCITT T.6 will compress
>> nothing. And an exe you cannot compress with CCITT T.6.
>> Will be very nice if some one can send me the sources or a link to
>> the description of the (non patent) algorithm.
>>
>> On the other hand, it is possible that I have made a mistake at
>> implementation. Please look into package
>> com.izforge.izpack.compressor. There are the related classes.
>
>I'll check my figs first.  Like I said, I could have made a mistake.  
>I'll see.
>
>And, while I'm at it, I've never used Jar files on Windows before.  Is 
>it just me, or are then not double clickable by default?  I'm going 
>have to add a batch file with the download for my clients 
>since most of 
>them get confused with right clicking or other methods that 
>aren't just 
>a double click to run something.  I'm also willing to bet this is a 
>Microsoft thing connected with the Sun/Microsoft feud.
>
>Hal
>_______________________________________________
>izpack-users mailing list
>izpack-users at lists.berlios.de
>http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/izpack-users
>