Sorry for the delay, checking my facts as I have been out of the Programming game for a long long time. My memory may be faulty after all this time.
If you re-read my suggestion it does allow a choice of whether NTFS Folders/Files are compressed when restored.
It is why I said ' For completeness you could add a tickbox to allow NTFS Compression to be set on/off which would be grayed out if the selected destination is not a NTFS volume.'
By simply setting the tickbox to 'off' all files are restored without NTFS Compression being set which should even allow you to override NTFS Compression set on a volume. (If I remember correctly the setting are Defaults unless 'overridden')The flag is simply to allow Reflect
to display a message to say there are NTFS Compressed files
in this Backup/Backup set
and to enable/switch-on the extra functionality
in the Dialog box when the Backup is opened for restoration. The file format does not need to change
and surely there is some 'slack' built into the Header Information
to allow change/future expansion of the functionality of Reflect
, for a flag of only 1 bit
already has the extended attributes
to say whether it is NTFS compressed
or not.If all original attributes/extended attributes are saved then this is already there as of when you read in the Directory Structure in the current s/w.
[Worse case additional 'code'
You perform 2 different function calls to get the Compressed & Uncompressed File size (on the original Folders/Files when reading in the data for the Backup), if not equal the Folder/File is compressed.
(The call to get the Compressed size will return the uncompressed/actual size if not 'NTFS compressed' so this will work!!!)] See attached sample/example .pdf's from MSDN .... I needed to confirm memory. All the information is in the NTFS Filesystem to be queried, if Reflect saves all the information it is there already in the present saved backup files as part of the Directory information.
I am detecting a real dislike for this idea
, fine if the implementation is problematic/costly or it breaks something else ..... but the information is there at little extra effort/cost as far as I can see. (Dependant on the 'if' above.)At this point dismiss it if you want, as is your right, I am fine with that.
I am yet to be convinced it is impossible of its self but I am not going to push the case any more if you are so convinced it cannot be done.IMHO:
The functionality does not impede or break anything currently done in the software as far as I can see.
No extra scanning of Folders/Files is needed in its own right as the Folders/Files are scanned when the Backup is performed and it requires taking notice of some of the information/data that is already there when reading the Folders/Files Data to perform the backup.
It is now late so I will pack up for now.
It was an idea, thats all.
As I am not rewarded on it happening or not, it is of little note at the end of the day, a little entertainment engaging the brain for a bit that's all, when I cannot sleep. [Insomniac for my sins.].
Thanks for your time and attention.