Hello Gerard, I hope that if the others here want to move with it they do so as I agree with you that Adem has a certain degree of urgency on this rather big change he has recently made which is undergoing and needs valuable input to complete its direction in a timely manner. Your comments below (and Nanogroup mails I read) show the urgency of this: G> I acted so quickly because Adem is working hard on his Nanozip and had just G> done a major restructuring. It wanted to start the discussion with him on G> modularity as soon as possible, so that Adem could direct his work G> immediately in this direction if he was to agree. It would be a pity to Re your comment below: G> I don't agree with the proposal of making Nanozip the compression engine G> and Delphizip the VCL archive manipulation component. I like very much G> Adem's container/content abstraction and his use of streams and I would not G> like to loose that. I think the Nanozip component and Delphizip can very G> well coexist, and even other similar components could be developped, which G> all could potentially choose from the same set of compression engines. I would humbly suggest that if the Nano/DZip group transpires (hopefully) that we (Gerard, Eric, James, Roger, Adem, [I am happy to help]) suggest the various methodologies we could adopt to complete the common goal and have an general questionaire to put to the groups as a whole. That way everybody can express their point of view and providing the group is cohesive enough, the final goal will be reached with a co-ordinated, professional result rather than with disjointed, semi-cooperation. G> If there is any hope on a common effort, please let's try to look in the G> direction of the goal we want to achieve. I am very sorry if I hurt anyone, Agreed. Now I have got to do some work ;-) I remain available to help in any way should I be needed. Programatically I am just returning to Delphi so would be better serving helping you Eric or whatever. Alistair+