Replacing pON with SFS #40
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Fantastic, thank you! I would love to use this as the impetus to get the #37 PR merged finally (be sure to try that one out if you haven't already!) I'm just heading to bed now, but I'll do all the legwork to get this merged before the weekend 👍 💯 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Although I haven't personally used SFS yet outside of this repo, it appears to be an overall better alternative to pON based on the project's readme. SFS boasts significant improvements in both speed and efficiency for data compression. It also looks to render the current
util.Compressfunction obsolete when SFS is utilized (Asutil.Compresswould only increase the size). Integrating SFS compression should be easy as a drop in replacement by the looks of how you've implemented pON in to gm_express so far.