On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM, John Tamplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Would it make sense to group fragment files under a subdir whose name is >> the strong name of the startup script? >> A40BE3F0/ >> A40BE3F0-001.cache.js >> A40BE3F0-002.cache.js >> A40BE3F0-003.cache.js >> .... > > These strings will appear in URLs and are somewhat long already -- is > duplicating better than a smaller directory name?
Instead of duplicating, why not just avoid repeating the strong name in the fragments. In other words, this: A40BE3F0.cache.js // main fragment A40BE3F0/001.cache.js // first auxillary fragment A40BE3F0/002.cache.js // second auxillary fragment ... Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
