Objelean wrote:
It would be nice to have 2 versions of each js: original &
packed.
For instance: wicket-ajax.js & wicket-ajax.pack.js
Also to use the packed version in DEPLOYMENT model. This is
applicable
to
other js from the wicket-core & wicket-extensions. The idea is to
redu
What do you mean by included resources ?
By default every js and css under src/main/resources, src/main/webapp,
src/main/js are minified. (using the resources option is for exceptionnal case)
Contact me privatly for questions about the plugin (not related to wicket).
Alex Objelean wrote:
David
t;>> Regards
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---
t;>> packed/nonpacked in deployment/development mode is seriously not
> worth
> >>>>>>> it. Furthermore the core developers only have so much time, and I
> think
> >>>>>>> in that respect it's also a waste of their time if they had to
You could aggregate every type of resources.
Alex Objelean wrote:
Very interesting. Would be nice to have also aggregate css.
Regards,
Alex.
David Bernard-2 wrote:
If you want you could use the yuicompressor-maven-plugin to "minified"
(more than just strip whitespace) at build time.
http:/
---
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-RFE--packed-JS-in-DEPLOYMENT-mode.-tf4896243.ht
If you want you could use the yuicompressor-maven-plugin to "minified" (more
than just strip whitespace) at build time.
http://alchim.sf.net/yuicompressor-maven-plugin
Other features:
* aggregate js
* minified css
So you could test/run with minified in development and/or deployment mode
Disclam
notice the
>> >>> overhead for some js (the sum of the size of images is often bigger
>> than
>> >>> the sum of all the js). Furthermore, the js is static: it almost
>> never
>> >>> changes, so the it is downloaded only once! Also, if the js
of each js: original & packed.
For instance: wicket-ajax.js & wicket-ajax.pack.js
Also to use the packed version in DEPLOYMENT model. This is applicable
to
other js from the wicket-core & wicket-extensions. The idea is to
reduce
the
overall traffic.
Any thoughts?
Alex
--
View this messa
gt;>>>> It is indeed does not result in a performance boost, but it is still an
> >>>>>> improvement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> >>>>>>> I don'
Alex Objelean wrote:
It would be nice to have 2 versions of each js: original & packed.
For instance: wicket-ajax.js & wicket-ajax.pack.js
Also to use the packed version in DEPLOYMENT model. This is applicable
to
other js from the wicket-core & wicket-extensions. Th
o do you want to reduce the overall traffic? The client, or the
> >>>>> hoster?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I experimented with the packed js, but in general I hardly notice the
> >>>>> overhead for some js (the sum of the size of images is often b
It would be nice to have 2 versions of each js: original & packed.
For instance: wicket-ajax.js & wicket-ajax.pack.js
Also to use the packed version in DEPLOYMENT model. This is applicable
to
other js from the wicket-core & wicket-extensions. The idea is to
reduce
! Also, if the js is reused
> >>> accross pages, then it's only downloaded once on one page! Thus you are
> >>> optimizing for the very first pageload.
> >>>
> >>> However, the js has to be unpacked by the client EVERY SINGLE PAGE VIEW.
> &g
uery lib, I really NOTICED this a lot. It was
>>> VERY irritating (couple 100 ms delay every time I view ANY page on my
>>> site).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sebastiaan
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex Objelean wrote
w this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/-RFE--packed-JS-in-DEPLOYMENT-mode.-tf4896243.html#a14022953
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-m
I'm talking about packers (like the jQuery packed version):
What I see in jQuery.pack.js:
eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){e=function(c){return(c35?String.fromCharCode(c+29):c.toString(36))};if(!''.replace(/^/,
String)){while(c--)r[e(c)]=k[c]||e(c);k=[function(e){return
r[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w
duce
>> the
>> overall traffic.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Alex
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-RFE--packed-JS-in-DEPLOYMENT-mode.-tf4896243.html#a14023353
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't really understand the desire to pack js.
For who do you want to reduce the overall traffic? The client, or the
hoster?
I experimented with the packed js, but in general I hardly notice the
overhead for some js (the sum of the size of images is often bigger than
the sum of all the js)
e in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-RFE--packed-JS-in-DEPLOYMENT-mode.-tf4896243.html#a14022953
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comm
20 matches
Mail list logo
