That is a great option when available. Most people don't have that level of control over their servers.
Aaron Brandon Aaron wrote: > Moving further off-topic ... why not just use http compression? It > works especially well when the scripts are minified. > > -- > Brandon Aaron > > On 7/14/07, * Michael Geary* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote: > > > Sounds interesting, Aaron, thanks for the pointer. > > Two questions: > > How is the unpacking speed? I don't care how long it takes to pack > the code > (within reason), but unpacking speed is very important, especially > on slow > machines like an iPhone/Nokia/Windows Mobile phone. I saw a test > report that > seemed to indicate that Dean's packer took 1.5 seconds to unpack > jQuery on > the iPhone, which is way too slow. I would gladly take a slower > packing time > to get faster unpacking. > > Is the source code available? I can't use a compressor that I have > to go to > a website to use. That's fine for testing, but for production use > I need to > be able to integrate it into my build process and have it > available at all > times. > > Thanks, > > -Mike > > > From: Aaron Porter > > > > I know Dean Edward's packer has already been suggested but > > you can try my compressor if you'd like: > > > > > http://www.scriptingmagic.com/Topics/Compression/JavaScript%20Compressor/ > > > > My compressor is slower than packer but the results will be > > smaller. It also doesn't have a problem with things like > > missing semi-colons at the end of lines because it uses Rhino > > for the first pass which cleans everything up. > >
