Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We need your feedback on a survey! Each completed response supports our community and gives you a chance to win a $25 Amazon gift card!


Opinions on Boost filesystem?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
6 replies to this topic

#1 KaiserJohan   Members   -  Reputation: 1245

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:24 AM

Hello,
I'm looking into making a resource manager or the likes and I was looking for a library to provide a virtual filesystem. Naturally Boost is the first place I look and I found the 'filesystem' library.

I am simply interested in hearing of what other users have experienced with this library and/or know of other similiar libraries to look into, maybe even a fully-fledged resource-manager library.

Thanks

EDIT: C++

Edited by KaiserJohan, 13 December 2012 - 08:25 AM.


Sponsor:

#2 SiCrane   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9676

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:30 AM

That depends on what you want from a virtual filesystem. If, for example, you want the ability to treat the contents of a zip file like a regular directory, then boost::filesystem won't be much help, but you might consider PhysFS instead. On the other hand, if the only thing you want is to separate out platform specific directory browsing functions then boost::filesystem works just fine.

#3 KaiserJohan   Members   -  Reputation: 1245

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:54 AM

That, but I also want to read/write to resource file formats like PAK

#4 SiCrane   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9676

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:01 AM

PhysFS also has the ability to use the Quake PAK format.

#5 KaiserJohan   Members   -  Reputation: 1245

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:40 AM

The PAK format was used since the days of Quake, is there any benefits to roll your own or using another resource format?

#6 SiCrane   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9676

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:10 AM

Unless you have extremely unusual requirements, there isn't much reason to roll your own package format right now. There are a sufficient number floating around that it wouldn't be too hard to find a format that suits your needs that would already have reader and writer code already programmed, debugged and available. I generally just use renamed zip files since tools and code that work with them are ubiquitous.

#7 Sik_the_hedgehog   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1837

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:22 AM

The PAK format was used since the days of Quake, is there any benefits to roll your own or using another resource format?

PAK has some strict limitations on filenames I believe, since it was made for back when you could get away with short filenames (I think the limit was 56 characters per file). Also they have a dated limit on filesize (if I recall correctly PAK files can't be larger than 4GB total), and don't support compression.

But yeah, there isn't much point on making your own format when you could just use ZIP or 7Z and maybe change the extension.

Edited by Sik_the_hedgehog, 13 December 2012 - 10:23 AM.

Don't pay much attention to "the hedgehog" in my nick, it's just because "Sik" was already taken =/ By the way, Sik is pronounced like seek, not like sick.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS