Last one looks good to me, although the directory names personally don't bother me too much as I view them as hidden non-user visible URLs. If shortness is actually a major requirement, might I suggest moving to modified base64 encoded strongnames, as that would collapse the length of the prefixes from 128/4=32 chars to 128/6= 21 chars. :)
-Ray On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about: > A40BE3F0/ > 001.cache.js > 002.cache.js > 003.cache.js > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM, John Tamplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Would it make sense to group fragment files under a subdir whose name is >>> the strong name of the startup script? >>> A40BE3F0/ >>> A40BE3F0-001.cache.js >>> A40BE3F0-002.cache.js >>> A40BE3F0-003.cache.js >>> .... >> >> These strings will appear in URLs and are somewhat long already -- is >> duplicating better than a smaller directory name? >> >> -- >> John A. Tamplin >> Software Engineer (GWT), Google >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
