On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Mike Belshe <m...@belshe.com> wrote: > Overall, I think the general idea. > I'm concerned about the head-of-line blocking that it introduces. If an > administrator poorly constructs the bundle, he could significantly hurt > perf. Instead of using gzip, you could use a framer which chunked items > before gzipping. This might be more trouble than it is worth. > Inside the browser, the caching is going to be kind of annoying. Example: > Say foo.zip contains foo.gif and baz.gif, and foo.zip expires in one week. > When the browser downloads the manifest, it needs to "unfold it" and store > foo.gif and baz.gif in the cache. Then, a week later, if the browser tries > to use foo.gif, it will be expired; does the browser fetch foo.zip? or just > foo.gif? Obviously, either will "work". But now you've got an inconsistent > cache. If you hit another page which references foo.zip next, you'll > download the whole zip file when all you needed was bar.gif. This is > probably a minor problem - I can't see this being very significant in > practice. Did you consider having the resources for a bundle be addressed > such as: http://www.foo.com/bundle.zip/foo.gif ? This would eliminate the > problem of two names for the same resource. Maybe this was your intent - > the spec was unclear about the identity (URL) of the bundled resources. > I think it is a good enough idea to warrant an implementation. Once we have > data about performance, it will be clear whether this should be made > official or not. > Mike >
Another caching-related issue involves versioning of the archives. If version 2 of a zip contains only a few files modified since version 1, and I have version 1 cached, is there some way to take advantage of that? Can SDCH be helpful here? Also, you explicitly note that all the files in the archive should have the same expiry, but I wonder if there are ways (and if its useful) to drop that restriction as well. I think there's a lot of space for research and evaluation here, and I agree with Mike that this is a good enough idea to warrant an implementation and experimentation. -- Dirk > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Alexander Limi <l...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Alexander Limi <l...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM, James Robinson <jam...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, actual numbers would be nice to have. >>> >>> Steve Souders just emailed me some preliminary numbers from a bunch of >>> major web sites, so that should be on his blog shortly. >> >> Numbers are up: >> >> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/11/18/fewer-requests-through-resource-packages/ >> >> -- >> Alexander Limi · Firefox User Experience · http://limi.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
