> On 8 Jun 2015, at 19:42, Ricordisamoa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Il 08/06/2015 14:58, Yuvi Panda ha scritto: >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Ricordisamoa >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Il 01/05/2015 10:02, Ricordisamoa ha scritto: >>>> Thank you SO MUCH! >>>> Out of curiosity, how does it compare to the 'old' static? Is the latter >>>> supposed to be deprecated at some point? >>> >>> Any answers to this question? >> Not sure - the owners of the static tool should respond, maybe? the >> CDNJS one is certainly faster than /static was (no NFS dependency). > > Is it advisable/worth to migrate tools from /static to CDNJS?
Yes. At the very least make sure you're referencing static assets from tools-static.wmflabs.org. That way the requests are cached better in your browsers, and there's no cookies being sent back and forth. Both 'static' and 'cdnjs' are on this server now. E.g. https://tools.wmflabs.org/static-browser/show/bootstrap <https://tools.wmflabs.org/static-browser/show/bootstrap> advertises: <link rel="stylesheet" href="//tools-static.wmflabs.org/static/bootstrap/3.2.0/css/bootstrap.min.css"> https://tools.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/ <https://tools.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/> points to: https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/ajax/libs/twitter-bootstrap/3.3.4/css/bootstrap.min.css <https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/ajax/libs/twitter-bootstrap/3.3.4/css/bootstrap.min.css> As for comparing static-browser to cdnjs. * cdnjs is loaded from local disk instead of NFS. So web requests are handled faster. * cdnjs is loaded by an upstream community dedicated to the task. Updates are much faster and more libraries are available. -- Krinkle
_______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
