I agree with you. It is quite hard to maintain two files for every script. I
was just thinking out loud :)..
Alex.
Matej Knopp-2 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]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-RFE--packed-JS-in-DEPLOYMENT-mode.-tf4896243.html#a14025500
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
