Jorge Chamorro <mailto:[email protected]>
October 11, 2013 3:14 PM
I appreciate the beauty in 'speedy' and http2.0, but it requires an
upgrade of both ends to http2.0, all the servers and browsers in the
world.
We could have the .zip prefetch ref attribute operative tomorrow in
the next browser update, an update which we are going to do anyway. No
need to touch any server.
There are many more client than server side developers, and to grasp
the idea behind an assets.zip prefetch ref attribute takes just a few
seconds, or perhaps a minute, no more. The word spreads, and in less
than a year we'd have the web served zipped, but servers are much more
complicated than that, and no two servers are programmed nor
configured equal.
And http2.0 and 'speedy' and all their beauty too, in the future. Why
does it have to be one or the other?
Russell Leggett <mailto:[email protected]>
October 11, 2013 6:53 AM
> As you can see the resource packages attempt got dropped.
Perhaps this proposal will go through because it is tied to the
module loader?
It's sad. What happened? Why was it ditched? Was it, perhaps, too
ahead of its time?
Let's try again :-)
As you can see, it basically fell to the same conclusion as you are
trying to fight right now - SPDY and html pipelining. The idea that
this can be transparently handled better with http rather than a
bundling approach.
- Russ
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Jorge Chamorro <mailto:[email protected]>
October 11, 2013 6:44 AM
On 11/10/2013, at 15:15, Russell Leggett wrote:
Just wanted to point out a couple of previous attempts at something similar to
generic bundling and the reactions it got, because so far it hasn't panned out.
Way back in 2008, it was my one and only real contribution to the whatwg list
before getting a little frustrated and moving on:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-July/015411.html
Brilliant, Yes! That's it!
"if all js,css,and even images and other files could be zipped up
or tarred, that would only require a single HTTP request. This could
basically just add the files to the browser cache or other local storage
mechanism so that requests for the resources would not need to make an extra
trip"
2008? That's 5 looong years ago.
Then a year later, Alex Limi independently came up with a very similar
proposal: http://limi.net/articles/resource-packages/
and actually got a version of it working in some branch of firefox:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=529208
And here's a couple of discussions on that proposal:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/MXeSYsawUgU
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027582.html
As you can see the resource packages attempt got dropped. Perhaps this proposal
will go through because it is tied to the module loader?
It's sad. What happened? Why was it ditched? Was it, perhaps, too ahead of its
time?
Let's try again :-)
Russell Leggett <mailto:[email protected]>
October 11, 2013 6:15 AM
Just wanted to point out a couple of previous attempts at something
similar to generic bundling and the reactions it got, because so far
it hasn't panned out.
Way back in 2008, it was my one and only real contribution to the
whatwg list before getting a little frustrated and moving on:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-July/015411.html
Then a year later, Alex Limi independently came up with a very similar
proposal: http://limi.net/articles/resource-packages/
and actually got a version of it working in some branch of firefox:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=529208
And here's a couple of discussions on that proposal:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/MXeSYsawUgU
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/mozilla.dev.platform/MXeSYsawUgU>
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027582.html
As you can see the resource packages attempt got dropped. Perhaps this
proposal will go through because it is tied to the module loader?
Not sure if this changes anything, carry on.
- Russ
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
David Bruant <mailto:[email protected]>
October 11, 2013 4:23 AM
Le 11/10/2013 12:46, Jorge Chamorro a écrit :
On 11/10/2013, at 12:02, David Bruant wrote:
Providing a zip in the manifest file could work, but I'm not sure I
see the benefit over individual files. Disk fragmentation issues maybe?
One benefit is that a single .zip can fetch a bunch of files in a
single network round trip.
The manifest file was in response to Andrea's point about packaged app
(where he pointed that network requests aren't the only use case), so
network round trips don't apply.
Another is than once the .zip has been unzipped, its files can be
accessed synchronously.
If we're back on the network use case, server push has the same
benefits (resource bundling and in-memory availability)... and saves a
network round-trip since the resources come along!
I highly recommend reading
http://www.igvita.com/2013/06/12/innovating-with-http-2.0-server-push/
(which is the best resource I've found on server push so far).
If you prefer video form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46exugLbGFI&list=PLS3jzvALRSe6uP9gVfXLCG6nWo7M0hAJY&index=2
(start at 9'00'' for HTTP 2.0 and 11'00'' for server push)
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
