4 ms·
That would become an awful mess pretty quickly. One extra HTTP request per script dependency is a pretty acceptable trade-off for keeping things tidy, especiall
by udp 16y ago
That would become an awful mess pretty quickly. One extra HTTP request per script dependency is a pretty acceptable trade-off for keeping things tidy, especially nowadays with things like keep alive and pipelining.
If you have a custom backend, you could always give it a list of frontend scripts to send and send them all to the browser as one big virtual "scripts.js" file. Then you get the best of both worlds - all the scripts in one HTTP request, but in a separated, maintainable file structure on the server.
(The modified date to compare to/set scripts.js for caching purposes would be the highest out of all the script files, obviously)
- rbranson 16y ago^^^ this. Sprockets is a good way to do this if you're using Rails. If you don't need something quite as sophisticated, Rails has built-in asset caching that will combine your JS and CSS files into a single file automatically by just putting :cache => "identifier" on the asset tag helpers. You should probably still try to use the major CDNs for very popular libraries like Prototype, jQuery, etc. These are more likely to pull from cache and not incur any additional transfer time.
- DTrejo 16y agoAnd for scripts that google is too slow to put on their cdn... http://www.cdnjs.com/ http://www.cdnjs.com/