3 ms·

I work on the Google libraries CDN in my 20% time. Meanwhile I'm also the developer of Modernizr which is one of the other highly-starred issues trying to get o

I work on the Google libraries CDN in my 20% time. Meanwhile I'm also the developer of Modernizr which is one of the other highly-starred issues trying to get onto the CDN. In order for us to consider adding a library to our API, that library must basically get tens of millions of loads per day across millions of websites. Due to the details of how browser caches work, hosting on our CDN really only benefits the web for libraries that are literally all over the place. So while it's important that we see there is user demand for both Modernizr and Head.js (and jQuery Tools, Underscore, Mootools More), so please do star... the best chance for them to be added is if we see that they are wiiiidely in use across the web. Thx, bros.

latch 15y ago
Is there any conversation about expanding the scope/purpose of Google CDN? It seems like it could "benefit the web" beyond simply increasing cache hits ratios. Most obviously, it could speed the web up (a core goal of Google, as I understand), by placing files on CDN - regardless of cache hits/misses. I mean, even if head.js isn't cached in a browser, I'm going to guess that, on average, it'll download faster from Google CDN than from my server. It can also act as a sort of javascript repository and legitimize those libraries that deserve to be legitimized. I see a chicken and egg thing here, to be on Google CDN you need millions of hits, yet being on Google CDN might help you reach that goal.
- paulirish 15y ago
  > I'm going to guess that, on average, it'll download faster from Google CDN than from my server. Not really a safe assumption, it turns out. http://zoompf.com/blog/2010/01/should-you-use-javascript-library-cdns http://zoompf.com/blog/2010/01/should-you-use-javascript-lib... has one of the best discussions of the topic. > I see a chicken and egg thing here, to be on Google CDN you need millions of hits, yet being on Google CDN might help you reach that goal. I don't think that's legit.. If one of your primary criteria on whether to use a given javascript library is it's CDN availability.. you're probably not choosing your tools well. At the same time, I know I prefer to grab a CDN hosted script when starting a project then the downloading rigamarole. But that is like just general development momentum issue rather than a tooling decision.

latch 15y ago

Is there any conversation about expanding the scope/purpose of Google CDN? It seems like it could "benefit the web" beyond simply increasing cache hits ratios. Most obviously, it could speed the web up (a core goal of Google, as I understand), by placing files on CDN - regardless of cache hits/misses. I mean, even if head.js isn't cached in a browser, I'm going to guess that, on average, it'll download faster from Google CDN than from my server. It can also act as a sort of javascript repository and legitimize those libraries that deserve to be legitimized. I see a chicken and egg thing here, to be on Google CDN you need millions of hits, yet being on Google CDN might help you reach that goal.

paulirish 15y ago
> I'm going to guess that, on average, it'll download faster from Google CDN than from my server. Not really a safe assumption, it turns out. http://zoompf.com/blog/2010/01/should-you-use-javascript-library-cdns http://zoompf.com/blog/2010/01/should-you-use-javascript-lib... has one of the best discussions of the topic. > I see a chicken and egg thing here, to be on Google CDN you need millions of hits, yet being on Google CDN might help you reach that goal. I don't think that's legit.. If one of your primary criteria on whether to use a given javascript library is it's CDN availability.. you're probably not choosing your tools well. At the same time, I know I prefer to grab a CDN hosted script when starting a project then the downloading rigamarole. But that is like just general development momentum issue rather than a tooling decision.