Not a bad suggestion but the changing the formats would be tough I think, however, Garrett, you could change all of the attributes to one letter codes and such to shrink it up quite a bit? > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:21:17 -0600, Garrett Serack <garrett_serack@xxxxxx> > wrote: >> The ScintillaNET.dll assembly is coming in at 106k, and the ScConfig.dll >> assembly is 561K (Mainly 'cause of all the .xml files included as >> resources). >> Any thoughts? > > 5) Why not ditch XML for config files and use something that takes > less space. I didn't look at the format but I believe a simple, easy > to parse text format would do and save space. XML is a really verbose > format. Alternatively (or additionally) those resources could be > compressed and uncompressed in memory before parsing. > > Or, given that those are resources hidden from users and not meant to > be read/modified, why not just a binary format (e.g. serialized CLR > class) that would be super-efficient (both space and time) to use. As > part of the build process there could be a step that converts XML > source description into this efficient, binary format (so that we keep > the benefits of being able to modify config files easily in XML). > > It's a bit strange that style description take as much space as all > the scintilla code. > > Krzysztof Kowalczyk | http://blog.kowalczyk.info > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ScintillaNET Mailing List: ScintillaNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe: Send an email to scintillanet-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > and put "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) in the Subject line. > > Web Page: http://tinyurl.com/yvoh2 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ScintillaNET Mailing List: ScintillaNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: Send an email to scintillanet-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and put "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) in the Subject line. Web Page: http://tinyurl.com/yvoh2