4 ms·
For reference, these exist: http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.0/jquery.min.js http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.0/jquery.min... ht
by nbpoole 16y ago
For reference, these exist:
http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.0/jquery.min.js http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.0/jquery.min...
http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.1/jquery.min.js http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.1/jquery.min...
http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4/jquery.min.js http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4/jquery.min.j... (loads 1.4.4)
http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5/jquery.js http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5/jquery.js (the non-minified version of the link that's down. version is 1.5.2)
My guess would be something went wrong in rolling out v1.5.2 (since the minified version is 404ing but the regular version isn't). Of course, shouldn't your application be specifying a specific version of jQuery anyway, so that you control when the version changes?
Edit: Apparently 1.5.1 is still the latest release, according to the docs (http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/devguide.html#jquery http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/devguide.html#jquery)
Edit 2: The non-minified version still works, and it's returning 1.5.2.
- akamaka 16y agoAh, so perhaps nobody should have been pointing to 1.5 (vs. 1.5.0) to begin with? Edit: The docs mention only these specific version numbers: 1.2.3, 1.2.6, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.5.0, 1.5.1
- nbpoole 16y agoWell, yes and no. Google does specifically allow that behavior as part of their versioning policy (http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/devguide.html#versioning http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/devguide.html#versioni...). However, in a production environment, you really shouldn't be automatically loading the latest release of jQuery; what happens if there's a regression that affects your application's performance? Regardless, I don't think that URL should be down.
- akamaka 16y agoThat's very good to know. I had wrongly assumed 1.5 was and always would be 1.5.0.
- bmelton 16y agoConsider it anecdotal, but I've personally never been burned on any jQuery minor point releases. Going from 1.3 to 1.4 and 1.5 has always been cause to revisit my code, but generally, minor point releases have always improved things for me.
- Encosia 16y agoYou lose almost all of the caching benefit when you use the "latest" version references, like 1.5. They're (necessarily) served with a very short expires header, as compared to the specific versions' +1 year.
- cookiecaper 16y agoHow short is the header? While 1 year+ is nice, if 1.5.x is served with, say, a 24 hour expiration header, you can still get a lot of cache benefit if the user visits other sites that use jQuery that day.
- nbpoole 16y agoOne hour, I believe. Also keep in mind that other sites have to be using the 1.5 URL as well.
- bmelton 16y agoThat's a very valid point that I hadn't considered. I'd be curious to see how many people use the latest vs. the specific versions. Excluding the shorter cache on latest, in theory at least, you get the greatest cache benefit from whichever is the most linked-to version, yes? E.g., if 1.5.1 is 300% more popular than 1.5.2 at a given point in time, then you're far more likely to be primed for any given user, yes?
- Encosia 16y agoThere's danger in trying to out-think other sites, holding back on upgrades with the expectation that everyone else will do the same. If everyone did that, no one would ever upgrade at all. On the contrary, I think that the sites which matter (those with high traffic and broad reach, which are also the most actively maintained) will probably upgrade fairly quickly.