5 ms·
Ask HN: Why not Tar?
Most web server configurations include gzip compression to send files to the client. Wouldn't giving servers the ability to tar package cachable static files so that all those files came down in one request improve the user experience further?
Any ideas why this hasn't ever been done?
- forgivegod 13y agoMight be because some sites merge static files together into one resource by using custom scripts to join files, shinkansen (.net), or packtag (jsp).
- taylorbuley 13y agoTar is an archive tool. Gzip is compression tool. One difference between them: an archive tool would e.g. concatenate files just once but a compression tool would compress files individually.
- zoowar 13y agoYou didn't understand the question.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Wouldn't giving servers the ability to tar package cachable static files so that all those files came down in one request improve the user experience further? I suspect not all that much. You'd trade request overhead for untar overhead.
- mooism2 13y agoTar archives include filesystem metadata (e.g. permissions), which don't make sense if you're viewing it as a collection of cacheable resources, and omit http metadata (e.g. content types, e-tags) which it would be at least helpful to include.