6 ms·
> "even if just for performance reasons" I don't think it matters for performance because it's cached in the browser anyway... So the purpose of the extension
by DavideNL 6y ago
> "even if just for performance reasons"
I don't think it matters for performance because it's cached in the browser anyway...
So the purpose of the extension is privacy.
- gitgud 6y agoI may be wrong, but I don't think the browser caches CDN requests, at least per site... So this might be a performance gain too https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29704811/why-isnt-the-browser-loading-cdn-file-from-cache https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29704811/why-isnt-the-br...
- minitech 6y agoThe answer at that Stack Overflow question is seriously incomplete (and even it doesn’t say there’s no cache). Browsers today will, for the most part, cache CDN responses, not need to revalidate them, and share that cache across sites (though I think first-party isolation changes that to a per-site cache).
- gitgud 6y agoYeah that's what I meant, I'm pretty sure it's isolated by each domain for privacy reasons. * example.com -> GET cdnjs.com/jquery * another.com -> GET cdnjs.com/jquery (not cached from example.com) No caching of the CDN assets between sites within the browser, regardless of HTTP caching headers.
- m463 6y agoStop. Go and look at the stack overflow. Then view source and look at the CDN links stack overflow uses.
- minitech 6y agoIs your comment intended to be rude? Maybe more importantly: is intended to have a point?
- m463 6y agoI think most CDNs nowadays do not cache as much as you think because they are used for tracking.