3 ms·
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.
by latch 16y 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 16y 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.