I too favor preferring CDN-sourcing resources when feasible and relying
on ResourceServer-sourcing resources only when a viable CDN is unavailable.
> Makes it easier to know what versions of resources are in use so we
consolidate on a few versions instead of a plethora of versions
To the extent that this is a real advantage of the Resource Server
approach, the same advantage can be accomplished by adding a layer of
abstraction to the CDN invocation, as in externalizing the URL to a
message bundle message or property or so.
On 4/29/14, 2:35 PM, James Wennmacher wrote:
I'd like to discuss the merits of using a CDN for common resources
(jQuery, bootstrap, fontawesome, etc.) instead of copying them to the
resource server.
CDN
------------
- Users benefit from caching with non-uPortal apps. Helpful in
particular for slow-bandwidth connections or devices with greater
cache limitations.
- We don't have to manage releases of Resource Server for common
resources, nor modify pom.xml files to make sure the resource server
overlay process copies the files.
Resource Server
----------------------
- Makes it easier to know what versions of resources are in use so we
consolidate on a few versions instead of a plethora of versions
I generally favor the CDN approach; why duplicate what is freely and
readily available to us with some extra advantages (potential
pre-caching of content by other web sites).
Community thoughts?
--
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
