On 11/10/2013, at 13:23, David Bruant wrote: > Le 11/10/2013 12:46, Jorge Chamorro a écrit : >> On 11/10/2013, at 12:02, David Bruant wrote: >> >>> Providing a zip in the manifest file could work, but I'm not sure I see the >>> benefit over individual files. Disk fragmentation issues maybe? >> One benefit is that a single .zip can fetch a bunch of files in a single >> network round trip. > The manifest file was in response to Andrea's point about packaged app (where > he pointed that network requests aren't the only use case), so network round > trips don't apply. > >> Another is than once the .zip has been unzipped, its files can be accessed >> synchronously. > If we're back on the network use case, server push has the same benefits > (resource bundling and in-memory availability)... and saves a network > round-trip since the resources come along!
I've read/seen the links you've posted now, thank you. HTTP2.0 is awesome, but it requires resource planning a priori, and the cooperation of the server, and a server HTTP2.0 capable. Not sure if the client's http stack does need to be updated too, does it? OTOH the <script src='main.js' ref='assets.zip'> is a 100% client-side solution, so it would be compatible with any server of any http version. It requires a browser that implements it though, and preferably a way to feature-detect the capability, of course, so it's not perfect either. But the ability to use synchronous require()s, á la node, in a browser would be a big big big win. imho. The ref='assets.zip', it seems to me, is an easier proposition. -- ( Jorge )(); _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
