No. Only javascript resources. They are static and the gzipped version
is cached. Gzipping generated html every time seems like a waste of
resources to me.
-Matej
On Nov 29, 2007 1:52 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Didn't know that; that's nice. :-) Learn something new every day.
>
> Do you also serve the HTML gzipped?
>
>
> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
> Matej Knopp wrote:
> > We do also serve javascript gzipped, so there is no reason for using
> > mod_gzip either.
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 1:48 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm with Matej on this one.
> >>
> >> 2 files to maintain, extra code logic in Wicket itself to maintain,
> >> extra complexity, with no real gain. Wicket markup can already be
> >> "minimified" (see Matej's other mail), and I really think using
> >> something like mod_gzip is a much better option: separation of concerns
> >> and you get compression on other stuff as well.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Sebastiaan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Matej Knopp wrote:
> >>> But that would mean maintaining two files for every script. Which
> >>> means at least a compilation time dependency. And I still don't see
> >>> good reason for this.
> >>>
> >>> -Matej
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 29, 2007 1:26 PM, Alex Objelean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> Sebastiaan, Matej, I think you get me wrong.
> >>>> I do not suggest to minify the js files in runtime. What I suggest, is to
> >>>> have both, for instance: wicket-ajax.js & wicket-ajax.pack.js, in the
> >>>> distributed jar. And include the wicket related js this way:
> >>>>
> >>>> if (Application.DEVELOPMENT
> >>>> .equalsIgnoreCase(Application.get().getConfigurationType())) {
> >>>> add(HeaderContributor.forJavaScript(new ResourceReference(
> >>>> AbstractDefaultAjaxBehavior.class, "wicket-ajax.pack.js")));
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> add(HeaderContributor.forJavaScript(new ResourceReference(
> >>>> AbstractDefaultAjaxBehavior.class, "wicket-ajax.js")));
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> >>>>> 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(c<a?'':e(parseInt(c/a)))+
> >>>>> ((c=c%a)>35?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+'};c=1};while(c--)if(k[c])p=p.replace(new
> >>>>> RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c]);return p}('(G(){9(1m E!="W")H w=E;H
> >>>>> E=18.15=G(a,b){I 6 7u E?6.5N(a,b):1u E(a,b)};9(1m $!="W")H D=$;18.$=E;H
> >>>>> u=/^[^<]*(<(.|\\s)+>)[^>]*$|^#(\\w+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> etc... etc...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is run every time the document is loaded (onload) which is quite a
> >>>>> hit on client side performance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I guess removing extra whitespace or shortening variable names could
> >>>>> help some (minimizer), but I think it's pretty much useless in most
> >>>>> cases. I think a better options is installing something like mod_gzip
> >>>>> which can also gzip outputted html.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the jQuery case:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jQuery is 79 kb plain unzipped.
> >>>>> jQuery is 46 kb minimized unzipped.
> >>>>> jQuery is 26 kb plain gzipped.
> >>>>> jQuery is 13 kb minimized gzipped.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The difference in this case is 33 kb a single time when using unzipped
> >>>>> (because it's cached after load), and 13 kb a single time when using
> >>>>> mod_gzip. If your site has any number of images they're going to make
> >>>>> any gains you're going to get out of this quite irrelevant IMHO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally I think it's a waste of time and the extra complexity of
> >>>>> 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 support
> >>>>> this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Sebastiaan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alex Objelean wrote:
> >>>>>> What do you mean by "unpacked"?
> >>>>>> "packing" = "minified", using Rhino Shrinksafe of JSMin or Yahoo tool
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> this purpose.
> >>>>>> It is indeed does not result in a performance boost, but it is still an
> >>>>>> improvement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> >>>>>>> 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). Furthermore, the js is static: it almost never
> >>>>>>> changes, so the it is downloaded only once! 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.
> >>>>>>> When using the packed jQuery 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:
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> overall traffic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Any thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> View this message in context:
> >>>> http://www.nabble.com/-RFE--packed-JS-in-DEPLOYMENT-mode.-tf4896243.html#a14024597
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
