On Fri Oct 25 11:48 PM, Ilya Grigorik wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Jonathan Bond-Caron jbo...@gdesolutions.com
mailto:jbo...@gdesolutions.com wrote:
I disagree, if you want to treat this as an optimization problem,
let's look at it:
1. x number of resources/files
± How would you suggest to deliver an application over internet (e.g.
± myapp.zip)? Isn't that a bundle already?
This claim is bogus. In all the cases I know, the packages are unzipped by the
OS before running the application, and the application itself has no need to
know anything about the
On Sun Oct 27 09:35 AM, François REMY wrote:
± How would you suggest to deliver an application over internet (e.g.
± myapp.zip)? Isn't that a bundle already?
This claim is bogus. In all the cases I know, the packages are unzipped by
the OS
before running the application, and the
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Jonathan Bond-Caron
jbo...@gdesolutions.com wrote:
You wouldn't get faster delivery with a P2P-like algorithm?
e.g.:
Server sends a header:
Cache-clients: my-neighbor.com:4000, my-other-neighor.com:6000
Some security considerations for sure but your claim
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Jonathan Bond-Caron
jbo...@gdesolutions.com wrote:
On Wed Oct 23 10:17 PM, Ilya Grigorik wrote:
In short, pitching zip bundling as a performance optimization is a
complete misnomer. If anything, it will only make things worse, even
for HTTP 1.x clients.
Hey all. Late to the discussion here, but after scanning the thread,
figured it might be worth sharing a few observations...
The fact that we have to bundle files at the application layer is an
unfortunate limitation of HTTP 1.x protocol. Specifically, because HTTP 1.x
forces us to serializes
6 matches
Mail list logo
