What do you mean by "unpacked"? "packing" = "minified", using Rhino Shrinksafe of JSMin or Yahoo tool for this purpose. It is indeed does not result in a performance boost, but it is still an improvement.
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote: > > I don't really understand the desire to pack js. > > For who do you want to reduce the overall traffic? The client, or the > hoster? > > I experimented with the packed js, but in general I hardly notice the > overhead for some js (the sum of the size of images is often bigger than > the sum of all the js). Furthermore, the js is static: it almost never > changes, so the it is downloaded only once! Also, if the js is reused > accross pages, then it's only downloaded once on one page! Thus you are > optimizing for the very first pageload. > > However, the js has to be unpacked by the client EVERY SINGLE PAGE VIEW. > When using the packed jQuery lib, I really NOTICED this a lot. It was > VERY irritating (couple 100 ms delay every time I view ANY page on my > site). > > Regards, > Sebastiaan > > > Alex Objelean wrote: >> It would be nice to have 2 versions of each js: original & packed. >> For instance: wicket-ajax.js & wicket-ajax.pack.js >> Also to use the packed version in DEPLOYMENT model. This is applicable to >> other js from the wicket-core & wicket-extensions. The idea is to reduce >> the >> overall traffic. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Alex > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-RFE--packed-JS-in-DEPLOYMENT-mode.-tf4896243.html#a14023353 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
