But that would mean maintaining two files for every script. Which
means at least a compilation time dependency. And I still don't see
good reason for this.
-Matej
On Nov 29, 2007 1:26 PM, Alex Objelean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sebastiaan, Matej, I think you get me wrong.
> I do not suggest to minify the js files in runtime. What I suggest, is to
> have both, for instance: wicket-ajax.js & wicket-ajax.pack.js, in the
> distributed jar. And include the wicket related js this way:
>
> if (Application.DEVELOPMENT
> .equalsIgnoreCase(Application.get().getConfigurationType())) {
> add(HeaderContributor.forJavaScript(new ResourceReference(
> AbstractDefaultAjaxBehavior.class, "wicket-ajax.pack.js")));
> } else {
> add(HeaderContributor.forJavaScript(new ResourceReference(
> AbstractDefaultAjaxBehavior.class, "wicket-ajax.js")));
> }
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> >
> > I'm talking about packers (like the jQuery packed version):
> >
> > What I see in jQuery.pack.js:
> >
> > eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){e=function(c){return(c<a?'':e(parseInt(c/a)))+
> > ((c=c%a)>35?String.fromCharCode(c+29):c.toString(36))};if(!''.replace(/^/,
> > String)){while(c--)r[e(c)]=k[c]||e(c);k=[function(e){return
> > r[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w+'};c=1};while(c--)if(k[c])p=p.replace(new
> > RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c]);return p}('(G(){9(1m E!="W")H w=E;H
> > E=18.15=G(a,b){I 6 7u E?6.5N(a,b):1u E(a,b)};9(1m $!="W")H D=$;18.$=E;H
> > u=/^[^<]*(<(.|\\s)+>)[^>]*$|^#(\\w+)
> >
> > etc... etc...
> >
> > This is run every time the document is loaded (onload) which is quite a
> > hit on client side performance.
> >
> > I guess removing extra whitespace or shortening variable names could
> > help some (minimizer), but I think it's pretty much useless in most
> > cases. I think a better options is installing something like mod_gzip
> > which can also gzip outputted html.
> >
> > In the jQuery case:
> >
> > jQuery is 79 kb plain unzipped.
> > jQuery is 46 kb minimized unzipped.
> > jQuery is 26 kb plain gzipped.
> > jQuery is 13 kb minimized gzipped.
> >
> > The difference in this case is 33 kb a single time when using unzipped
> > (because it's cached after load), and 13 kb a single time when using
> > mod_gzip. If your site has any number of images they're going to make
> > any gains you're going to get out of this quite irrelevant IMHO.
> >
> > Personally I think it's a waste of time and the extra complexity of
> > packed/nonpacked in deployment/development mode is seriously not worth
> > it. Furthermore the core developers only have so much time, and I think
> > in that respect it's also a waste of their time if they had to support
> > this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sebastiaan
> >
> >
> >
> > Alex Objelean wrote:
> >> 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#a14024597
>
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
