3 ms·
Have browsers always done this? I thought and heard that using a JS library from CDN is beneficial when users already have that same cached JS library from vis
by exodust 4y ago
Have browsers always done this?
I thought and heard that using a JS library from CDN is beneficial when users already have that same cached JS library from visiting other sites. But you're saying that's not a thing? So what's the benefit of using a CDN for jquery then?
- recursive 4y agoNo, they have not always done this. But the supposed caching benefits of CDNs have always been overstated.
- youngtaff 4y agoSafari has done it for a long time, Chrome and the others more recently. Even back in 2012 people were raising the question of whether shared caching of libraries from the public JS CDNs was effective — due to too many different versions in use, and content being evicted from the browser cache sooner than most expected
- exodust 4y agoOk thanks for explaining. I wasn't aware of the changes. I don't mind at all, it just means I'll avoid using CDN hosted JS libraries from now on.
- eastbound 4y agoBrowsers have started doing this because it’s a security issue. If a some libs load fast, the app can fingerprint or guess which website you were on before.