4 ms·

2 reasons: 1. If you're still using HTTP 1.x, sharding assets across origins lets the browser load them in parallel (if set up correctly). You can generally lo

2 reasons: 1. If you're still using HTTP 1.x, sharding assets across origins lets the browser load them in parallel (if set up correctly). You can generally load just 6 assets in parallel per origin, and sharding is a way to get around that limit. 2. A library like jQuery is so popular, and is so often served from googles CDN, that chances are a user already has it in their local cache from when they downloaded it on some other site. That said, yes - the downside is more surface area that might go down.

dchest 9y ago
2. A library like jQuery is so popular, and is so often served from googles CDN, that chances are a user already has it in their local cache from when they downloaded it on some other site. Which of these versions do you have cached? 3.2.1, 3.2.0, 3.1.1, 3.1.0, 3.0.0, 2.2.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.0, 2.1.4, 2.1.3, 2.1.1, 2.1.0, 2.0.3, 2.0.2, 2.0.1, 2.0.0, 1.12.4, 1.12.3, 1.12.2, 1.12.1, 1.12.0, 1.11.3, 1.11.2, 1.11.1, 1.11.0, 1.10.2, 1.10.1, 1.10.0, 1.9.1, 1.9.0, 1.8.3, 1.8.2, 1.8.1, 1.8.0, 1.7.2, 1.7.1, 1.7.0, 1.6.4, 1.6.3, 1.6.2, 1.6.1, 1.6.0, 1.5.2, 1.5.1, 1.5.0, 1.4.4, 1.4.3, 1.4.2, 1.4.1, 1.4.0, 1.3.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.6, 1.2.3
- castis 9y ago
  Asking an annoyed rhetorical question doesn't seem productive to the point you're trying to make here. As an actual answer, it would be variable proportional to the size of the window between releases mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery#Release_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery#Release_history I'm sure a fair amount of people serve jQuery from a local storage. The usefulness that the user might already have it cached is a non-zero point, no matter how insignificant you may think it is.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  How many do you need to make this worthwhile? The ratio of cost of storing a library versus the cost of GETing a library is very low, so the chances of already having a library cached can be very low for the EV to be worthwhile. Weighing that against the chance of downtime is a bit more complicated, admittedly.
- adventured 9y ago
  Just two versions of jQuery, 1.12 and 1.11, represent approximately half of all jQuery versions in use. The top four most common versions (1.12, 1.11, 1.7, 1.8) represent close to 3/4 of all versions of jQuery in use. Version 3.x and 2.x are hardly being used by comparison to those. That narrows your suggested problem down dramatically.
- nix0n 9y ago
  Looking at just minified versions from googleapis.com, I have 1.12.4, 2.2.4, 1.8.2, 1.10.2, 1.8.1, 1.9.1, and 2.1.1
hungerstrike 9y ago
> If you're still using HTTP 1.x Not sure why it was phrased that way but...isn't everybody? I know that HTTP/2 is released and browsers support it, but I'm fairly certain that next to nobody is actually doing anything with it.
- klodolph 9y ago
  It's getting rolled out in a lot of places. I think adoption is somewhere around 17% depending on how it's measured. I started using it for my personal website and it was really easy, the only part I missed was setting a cron job to reconfigure the web server whenever cert renewal went through.
- bcherny 9y ago
  Google, FB, Youtube, Wikipedia, and HN :) use HTTP2. I also use HTTP2 at work, and on every personal project. It's supported by every browser [1], and comes with a slew of benefits. It's usually trivial to set up, if you want to give it a shot. [1] http://caniuse.com/#feat=http2 http://caniuse.com/#feat=http2
s_kilk 9y ago
> You can generally load just 6 assets in parallel per origin This seems to only apply to Chrome, whereas Firefox will happily download everything as fast as possible. I know this because I fixed a bug recently where chrome was taking so long to download images that other resources on the page were timing out. No problem in Firefox.
- lamlam 9y ago
  Last I checked all the browsers had limits [1] when it came to HTTP 1.X. [1] http://blog.olamisan.com/max-parallel-http-connections-in-a-browser http://blog.olamisan.com/max-parallel-http-connections-in-a-...
  - s_kilk 9y ago
    The limits in Firefox must be really high then, it was almost funny looking at the difference in behaviour between the two browsers in the situation I was testing.
takeda 9y ago
3. Now 1/3 of pages I'm visiting I need to make request to google because someone wanted to use a 5 lines of JS from jQuery.

dchest 9y ago

2. A library like jQuery is so popular, and is so often served from googles CDN, that chances are a user already has it in their local cache from when they downloaded it on some other site. Which of these versions do you have cached? 3.2.1, 3.2.0, 3.1.1, 3.1.0, 3.0.0, 2.2.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.0, 2.1.4, 2.1.3, 2.1.1, 2.1.0, 2.0.3, 2.0.2, 2.0.1, 2.0.0, 1.12.4, 1.12.3, 1.12.2, 1.12.1, 1.12.0, 1.11.3, 1.11.2, 1.11.1, 1.11.0, 1.10.2, 1.10.1, 1.10.0, 1.9.1, 1.9.0, 1.8.3, 1.8.2, 1.8.1, 1.8.0, 1.7.2, 1.7.1, 1.7.0, 1.6.4, 1.6.3, 1.6.2, 1.6.1, 1.6.0, 1.5.2, 1.5.1, 1.5.0, 1.4.4, 1.4.3, 1.4.2, 1.4.1, 1.4.0, 1.3.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.6, 1.2.3

castis 9y ago
Asking an annoyed rhetorical question doesn't seem productive to the point you're trying to make here. As an actual answer, it would be variable proportional to the size of the window between releases mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery#Release_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery#Release_history I'm sure a fair amount of people serve jQuery from a local storage. The usefulness that the user might already have it cached is a non-zero point, no matter how insignificant you may think it is.
kerkeslager 9y ago
How many do you need to make this worthwhile? The ratio of cost of storing a library versus the cost of GETing a library is very low, so the chances of already having a library cached can be very low for the EV to be worthwhile. Weighing that against the chance of downtime is a bit more complicated, admittedly.
adventured 9y ago
Just two versions of jQuery, 1.12 and 1.11, represent approximately half of all jQuery versions in use. The top four most common versions (1.12, 1.11, 1.7, 1.8) represent close to 3/4 of all versions of jQuery in use. Version 3.x and 2.x are hardly being used by comparison to those. That narrows your suggested problem down dramatically.
nix0n 9y ago
Looking at just minified versions from googleapis.com, I have 1.12.4, 2.2.4, 1.8.2, 1.10.2, 1.8.1, 1.9.1, and 2.1.1

hungerstrike 9y ago

> If you're still using HTTP 1.x Not sure why it was phrased that way but...isn't everybody? I know that HTTP/2 is released and browsers support it, but I'm fairly certain that next to nobody is actually doing anything with it.

klodolph 9y ago
It's getting rolled out in a lot of places. I think adoption is somewhere around 17% depending on how it's measured. I started using it for my personal website and it was really easy, the only part I missed was setting a cron job to reconfigure the web server whenever cert renewal went through.
bcherny 9y ago
Google, FB, Youtube, Wikipedia, and HN :) use HTTP2. I also use HTTP2 at work, and on every personal project. It's supported by every browser [1], and comes with a slew of benefits. It's usually trivial to set up, if you want to give it a shot. [1] http://caniuse.com/#feat=http2 http://caniuse.com/#feat=http2

s_kilk 9y ago

> You can generally load just 6 assets in parallel per origin This seems to only apply to Chrome, whereas Firefox will happily download everything as fast as possible. I know this because I fixed a bug recently where chrome was taking so long to download images that other resources on the page were timing out. No problem in Firefox.

lamlam 9y ago
Last I checked all the browsers had limits [1] when it came to HTTP 1.X. [1] http://blog.olamisan.com/max-parallel-http-connections-in-a-browser http://blog.olamisan.com/max-parallel-http-connections-in-a-...
- s_kilk 9y ago
  The limits in Firefox must be really high then, it was almost funny looking at the difference in behaviour between the two browsers in the situation I was testing.

takeda 9y ago

3. Now 1/3 of pages I'm visiting I need to make request to google because someone wanted to use a 5 lines of JS from jQuery.