[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
Folks, I just added lift:tail builtin snippet support. script and link tags are treated differently in terms of duplicates checking such as a scripts with the same src will not be rendered more then once. Same thing applies for link and href attribute. Same dups criteria are applied for head merge as head merge did not handle certain cases. Duplicates between head and tail contents though are not determined. Should you have any questions/suggestions/comments, please let me know. Br's, Marius On May 11, 10:37 am, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 10:08 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. So what would this solve? ... I mean there is the ResourceServer used currently by widgets so that widget's dependencies to be served ... perhaps I'm missing something? Nevermind; I'll see if I can make a PoC using ResourceServer. The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
I think you missed a file during your checkin. The Tail object is missing :-( On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:15 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I just added lift:tail builtin snippet support. script and link tags are treated differently in terms of duplicates checking such as a scripts with the same src will not be rendered more then once. Same thing applies for link and href attribute. Same dups criteria are applied for head merge as head merge did not handle certain cases. Duplicates between head and tail contents though are not determined. Should you have any questions/suggestions/comments, please let me know. Br's, Marius On May 11, 10:37 am, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 10:08 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. So what would this solve? ... I mean there is the ResourceServer used currently by widgets so that widget's dependencies to be served ... perhaps I'm missing something? Nevermind; I'll see if I can make a PoC using ResourceServer. The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
ooops .. checking it right now :( On May 16, 7:53 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: I think you missed a file during your checkin. The Tail object is missing :-( On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:15 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I just added lift:tail builtin snippet support. script and link tags are treated differently in terms of duplicates checking such as a scripts with the same src will not be rendered more then once. Same thing applies for link and href attribute. Same dups criteria are applied for head merge as head merge did not handle certain cases. Duplicates between head and tail contents though are not determined. Should you have any questions/suggestions/comments, please let me know. Br's, Marius On May 11, 10:37 am, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 10:08 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. So what would this solve? ... I mean there is the ResourceServer used currently by widgets so that widget's dependencies to be served ... perhaps I'm missing something? Nevermind; I'll see if I can make a PoC using ResourceServer. The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
Done! ... very sorry about this. On May 16, 8:23 pm, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: ooops .. checking it right now :( On May 16, 7:53 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: I think you missed a file during your checkin. The Tail object is missing :-( On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:15 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I just added lift:tail builtin snippet support. script and link tags are treated differently in terms of duplicates checking such as a scripts with the same src will not be rendered more then once. Same thing applies for link and href attribute. Same dups criteria are applied for head merge as head merge did not handle certain cases. Duplicates between head and tail contents though are not determined. Should you have any questions/suggestions/comments, please let me know. Br's, Marius On May 11, 10:37 am, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 10:08 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. So what would this solve? ... I mean there is the ResourceServer used currently by widgets so that widget's dependencies to be served ... perhaps I'm missing something? Nevermind; I'll see if I can make a PoC using ResourceServer. The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
On May 10, 9:35 pm, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Well it would work but but you have to explicitly put the bind in there and for dynamic (potentially 3-rd party) views (such as widgets) it get more awkward because a generic widget would have to know about the application specific bind name. Of course the bind name could be parameterized but this seems unsound to me here. Whereas lift:tail seems to me a trivial thing to use essentially from any view, snippet etc. Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 10:08 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. So what would this solve? ... I mean there is the ResourceServer used currently by widgets so that widget's dependencies to be served ... perhaps I'm missing something? Nevermind; I'll see if I can make a PoC using ResourceServer. The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
Me or marius? Personally, I'm full of ideas :) On May 9, 1:26 am, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
On May 10, 4:57 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Yes ... for instance: lift:tail script src=app.js / lift:tail would yield: html body script src=app.js / /body /html At least this is what I'm referring to. Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
fyi. if you smash css into a single file but continue using relative urls in the css you'll end up with a slower page in the case that you're using asset hosts to work around the browsers http connection limit. when smashing into one file make sure to also apply the asset host trick to any url() statements in the css by rewriting them to be absolute urls rather than merely paths. commonly made mistake in the ruby world at least, saddens me. On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:55 PM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:02 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 4:57 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Yes ... for instance: lift:tail script src=app.js / lift:tail would yield: html body script src=app.js / /body /html At least this is what I'm referring to. Okay.. that sounds good to me. Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
On May 10, 10:08 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. So what would this solve? ... I mean there is the ResourceServer used currently by widgets so that widget's dependencies to be served ... perhaps I'm missing something? The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
Been thinking about this more, just trying to explore where this idea leads: - Where tail merge would really shine is that a snippet could be embedded inside a div tag, for example, but still have a tail pushed to the end of the page body. - Script entries in the head and tail blocks could be quickly analysed and duplicate scripts removed. - Possibly some additional elements/attributes on scripts inside head and tail blocks could ultimately evolve into part of a richer dependency management framework. On May 10, 9:39 pm, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 10:08 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: What I've been noodling about for some time is to have dependency management as a part of the framework. That could be easily obtained by having widgets etc register their dependencies in a SessionVar[List[Dependency]] and then simply add a DispatchPF to serve those dependencies as one package with the separate GET. So what would this solve? ... I mean there is the ResourceServer used currently by widgets so that widget's dependencies to be served ... perhaps I'm missing something? The downsides I've come up with are: * Adds a reasonable amount of complexity * The order of the dependencies is hard to get right * Premature optimization * Moves away from idea to have JS libraries served by third party hosts * Kind of defeats the purpose of caching JS Just my 2 cents, Viktor On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote: Yeah google analytics is a good use case. I think talking about smashing static files is off topic, but there is some value in having a tail merge for when you want to put stuff in just before the body tag. My only thinking right now is that why do we need a specific snippet to do this? Right now, lift-tag:bind and lift-tag:with- param would work perfectly for this right? Cheers, Tim On May 10, 3:21 pm, Bryan. germ...@gmail.com wrote: A nice use for this tail merge would be for the Google Analytics tracking code, especially the ecommerce tracking code. Here's something to keep an eye on as well: http://blog.digg.com/?p=621 -- still very new and in development. --Bryan On May 10, 9:57 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:55 AM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: People can choose to smash multiple js/css files into a single one, in fact it is a common practice. However for scripts that can be deferred putting them at the bottom of the page can improve rendering. Okay.. so we're not actually putting the scripts on the page, we're just putting them right about the /body tag? Br's, Marius On May 10, 4:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote: Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) I'm not 100% keen on it. Loading a ton of stuff into the HTML page (rather than having stuff cached by the browser) makes for larger page sizes. I'd much rather see a tool that would analyze the scripts and css that was included across lots of pages and recommending to the developer to make 10 CSS files or 20 script files into 1. But that's just me. Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
I like it. Chas. marius d. wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Tail merge?
Sounds like this could be a neat addition. Looking forward to see what you come up with :-) Cheers, Tim On 08/05/2009 20:19, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: A lift:tail built in snippet might me a good addition. I could probably allocate some time to noodle on it. Br's, Marius On May 8, 5:05 pm, KWright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote: It's becoming an established best practice that scripts should be put at the END of a page, where possible, in order to speed up download times Good article here:http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html It would be nice if Lift could help encourage and support this by allowing a tail (or Lift:tail?) element that could be merged in the same fashion as the head element, perhaps also removing duplicates, etc. This element would then disappear and expose only its content when the page is ultimately sent to the browser. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
