Apologies, I just answered what Ilya answered but I'd like to see this discussion ... where is this happening? Thanks a lot and send even off thread if you can.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, François REMY < francois.remy....@outlook.com> wrote: > I can’t help but repeat, what you describe is called an app package > format. Windows 8 has one, Chrome has one, Firefox OS has one; others may > have one, too. There are discussions about a standardized app package > format going on, but they are not happening on es-discuss. > > Why do you think this discussion belongs to es-discuss? Did I miss > something? > > > > *De :* Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> > *Envoyé :* samedi 26 octobre 2013 22:15 > *À :* 'Ilya Grigorik' <igrigo...@gmail.com> > *Cc :* es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org> > > Is it possible to not put HTTP in the middle of your thoughts? > > Why is **non HTTP** bundling a no go? > > Don't you donwload a single blob to install chrome and then eventually > have incremental updates? > > Why that single blob at the beginning should not be possible only in JS > since every other programming langauge has one and working without HTTP in > the middle? Without servers? Without an internet connection ? > > Thanks > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigo...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ilya ... just to re-clarify what was the discussion about: Generic >>> Bundling ... not HTTP Bundling. >>> I don't know why many keep coupling and confining HTML5 over HTTP and >>> nothing else. >>> Bundling as you do with executables or apps, bundling as you send a >>> single file update for your customer to replace instead of unzipping, >>> overwriting each file, etcetera. >>> Why is in your opinion bundling bad for non HTTP, offline, apps created >>> using these technologies ? >>> Every programming language I know have some bundle support that works as >>> single package/file ... C has the executable, then we have phar, war, jar, >>> python has many ... what about JS ? Won't work without HTTP ? Why ? >>> >> >> I'm not saying it won't work. I'm saying there are many downsides to >> distributing large blobs of data. Case in point, once you start >> distributing large blobs, you'll soon realize that it sucks that you have >> to download the entire blob every time a single byte has changed. As a >> result, you end up developing binary-diff formats.. like Courgette [1] that >> we use to update Chrome. A much simpler solution for web apps is to do >> exactly what AppCache did, create a manifest which lists all the resources, >> and let HTTP do the rest: each file can be downloaded and updated >> individually, etc. >> >> ig >> >> [1] >> http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/software-updates-courgette >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigo...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> + 1 to François's comments. >>>> >>>> You're not saying that gzipping and wise pre-fetching and parallel >>>>> download of scripts don't improve page load times. Or are you? >>>>> >>>> >>>> - We already have transfer-encoding in HTTP, and yes, you should >>>> definitely use it! >>>> - Prefetching is also an important optimization, but in the context of >>>> this discussion (bundling), it's an orthogonal concern. >>>> >>>> >>>>> In the equation you paint above something important is missing: the >>>>> fact that there's a round-trip delay per request (even with http2.0), and >>>>> that the only way to avoid it is to bundle things, as in .zip bundling, to >>>>> minimize the (number of requests and thus the) impact of latencies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> With HTTP 1.x (and without sharding) you can fetch up to six resources >>>> in parallel. With HTTP 2.0, you can fetch as many resources as you wish in >>>> parallel. The only reason bundling exists as an "optimization" is to work >>>> around the limit of six parallel requests. The moment you remove that >>>> limitation, bundling is unnecessary and only hurts performance. >>>> >>>> >>>>> And there's something else I think .zip bundling can provide that >>>>> http2.0 can't: the guarantee that a set of files are cached by the time >>>>> your script runs: with such a guarantee you could do synchronous module >>>>> require()s, à la node.js. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is completely orthogonal... if you need to express dependencies >>>> between multiple resources, use a loader script, or better.. look into >>>> using upcoming promise API's. As I mentioned previously, bundling breaks >>>> streaming / incremental execution / prioritization. >>>> >>>> ig >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
