Jim Starkey wrote:

> Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>
>>Not always.
>>
>>You don't know what the blob field will contain.
>>It may be an already compressed file.
>>
>>New features should not dictate bad performance for some type of normal
>>operation.
>
> Could somebody explain why the invariable reaction of this project to a
> new idea of "terrible, can't be done, there's a case that isn't
> optimimal" rather than "hey, that's a cool idea. Let's see how we can
> get it to work."
>
> The most stupid of compression schemes has at most a trivial cost when
> compressing the uncompressible. And if the compression scheme didn't,
> we could, trivially.
>
> So rather than reject every idea out of hand, why not use your brain to
> see how it could work?

And for the blobs that contain JPEG and TIFF binary compressed data?
*YES* compression can be added *BUT* it has to be selectable rather than
enforced?
At which point we get back to being able to optionally selecting the
*TYPE* of compression rather than trying to pick one and imposing it?
Isn't this what blob filters are a hook for?

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services