Compress-Zlib reviews

cpanratings
 

RSS | Module Info | Add a review of Compress-Zlib

Compress-Zlib (2.015) **

Although Andy might have been mistaken in his review that the newer versions are using pure perl, I believe he has good reason. I just benchmarked 1.52 against 2.015, and 1.52 is a little more than twice as fast in both compression and decompression as 2.015.

Blue - 2011-04-03T00:17:27 (permalink)

4 out of 5 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Compress-Zlib (2.015)

(This is a comment on another review rather than an independent review of the module. Excuse me but there is no facility to add comments to reviews on this site and I think this is worth noting.)

Regarding the other review by Andy Grundman, the version of this module referenced in Andy's review (2.015) uses an XS module called Compress::Raw::Zlib rather than a pure Perl version.

(Contact me at bkb@cpan.org if you have a comment about this review.)

Ben Bullock - 2010-07-24T01:47:37 (permalink)

2 out of 3 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Compress-Zlib (2.015) *

Compress::Zlib used to be a nice XS wrapper around the zlib library, and it was fast and efficient. Now it has become a front-end to the pure-Perl IO::Compress::Zlib, uses twice the memory, and has almost certainly taken a performance hit. I do not understand the reason for this change, please consider going back to using just zlib.

Andy Grundman - 2009-04-20T06:30:07 (permalink)

6 out of 8 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Compress-Zlib (1.22) ****

I think that this module must be installed in every system (well it may not be a standard module in a perl distribution --but ActivePerl adds it).

Really usefull.

Burak Gürsoy - 2003-09-14T12:01:54 (permalink)

1 out of 2 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Compress-Zlib (1.22) ****

This module tends to have some features not work on some platforms, and its interface and docs are quite confusing to me. However, it gets extra marks for utility.

Chris Nandor - 2003-08-25T22:00:45 (permalink)

2 out of 2 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No