Generic Bundling

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Sat Oct 12 12:07:58 PDT 2013


I agree with your approach that values ease of content-only (in the 
HTML, via script src= ref=) migration. I think David and others pointing 
to HTTP 2 undervalue that.

However, Russell's counter-argument that fallback in older browsers to 
loading lots of little files, request by request, from the server 
directory hierarchy, may be too painful, reducing the value as a 
migration technique.

Is there a way for old browsers that avoids a request storm, and which 
can be expressed entirely in the hosted content (no protocol stack 
update problem)?

/be

> Jorge Chamorro <mailto:jorge at jorgechamorro.com>
> October 11, 2013 3:14 PM
>
> I appreciate the beauty in 'speedy' and http2.0, but it requires an 
> upgrade of both ends to http2.0, all the servers and browsers in the 
> world.
>
> We could have the .zip prefetch ref attribute operative tomorrow in 
> the next browser update, an update which we are going to do anyway. No 
> need to touch any server.
>
> There are many more client than server side developers, and to grasp 
> the idea behind an assets.zip prefetch ref attribute takes just a few 
> seconds, or perhaps a minute, no more. The word spreads, and in less 
> than a year we'd have the web served zipped, but servers are much more 
> complicated than that, and no two servers are programmed nor 
> configured equal.
>
> And http2.0 and 'speedy' and all their beauty too, in the future. Why 
> does it have to be one or the other?
>
> Russell Leggett <mailto:russell.leggett at gmail.com>
> October 11, 2013 6:53 AM
>
>     > As you can see the resource packages attempt got dropped.
>     Perhaps this proposal will go through because it is tied to the
>     module loader?
>
>     It's sad. What happened? Why was it ditched? Was it, perhaps, too
>     ahead of its time?
>
>     Let's try again :-)
>
>
> As you can see, it basically fell to the same conclusion as you are 
> trying to fight right now - SPDY and html pipelining. The idea that 
> this can be transparently handled better with http rather than a 
> bundling approach.
>
> - Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> Jorge Chamorro <mailto:jorge at jorgechamorro.com>
> October 11, 2013 6:44 AM
> On 11/10/2013, at 15:15, Russell Leggett wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to point out a couple of previous attempts at something similar to generic bundling and the reactions it got, because so far it hasn't panned out.
>>
>> Way back in 2008, it was my one and only real contribution to the whatwg list before getting a little frustrated and moving on: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-July/015411.html
>
> Brilliant, Yes! That's it!
>
> "if all js,css,and even images and other files could be zipped up
> or tarred, that would only require a single HTTP request. This could
> basically just add the files to the browser cache or other local storage
> mechanism so that requests for the resources would not need to make an extra
> trip"
>
> 2008? That's 5 looong years ago.
>
>> Then a year later, Alex Limi independently came up with a very similar proposal: http://limi.net/articles/resource-packages/
>> and actually got a version of it working in some branch of firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=529208
>> And here's a couple of discussions on that proposal: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/MXeSYsawUgU
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027582.html
>>
>> As you can see the resource packages attempt got dropped. Perhaps this proposal will go through because it is tied to the module loader?
>
> It's sad. What happened? Why was it ditched? Was it, perhaps, too ahead of its time?
>
> Let's try again :-)
>
> Russell Leggett <mailto:russell.leggett at gmail.com>
> October 11, 2013 6:15 AM
> Just wanted to point out a couple of previous attempts at something 
> similar to generic bundling and the reactions it got, because so far 
> it hasn't panned out.
>
> Way back in 2008, it was my one and only real contribution to the 
> whatwg list before getting a little frustrated and moving on: 
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-July/015411.html
>
> Then a year later, Alex Limi independently came up with a very similar 
> proposal: http://limi.net/articles/resource-packages/
> and actually got a version of it working in some branch of firefox: 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=529208
> And here's a couple of discussions on that proposal: 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/MXeSYsawUgU 
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/mozilla.dev.platform/MXeSYsawUgU>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027582.html
>
> As you can see the resource packages attempt got dropped. Perhaps this 
> proposal will go through because it is tied to the module loader?
>
> Not sure if this changes anything, carry on.
>
> - Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> David Bruant <mailto:bruant.d at gmail.com>
> October 11, 2013 4:23 AM
> Le 11/10/2013 12:46, Jorge Chamorro a écrit :
>> On 11/10/2013, at 12:02, David Bruant wrote:
>>
>>> Providing a zip in the manifest file could work, but I'm not sure I 
>>> see the benefit over individual files. Disk fragmentation issues maybe?
>> One benefit is that a single .zip can fetch a bunch of files in a 
>> single network round trip.
> The manifest file was in response to Andrea's point about packaged app 
> (where he pointed that network requests aren't the only use case), so 
> network round trips don't apply.
>
>> Another is than once the .zip has been unzipped, its files can be 
>> accessed synchronously.
> If we're back on the network use case, server push has the same 
> benefits (resource bundling and in-memory availability)... and saves a 
> network round-trip since the resources come along!
>
> I highly recommend reading 
> http://www.igvita.com/2013/06/12/innovating-with-http-2.0-server-push/ 
> (which is the best resource I've found on server push so far).
> If you prefer video form:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46exugLbGFI&list=PLS3jzvALRSe6uP9gVfXLCG6nWo7M0hAJY&index=2 
> (start at 9'00'' for HTTP 2.0 and 11'00'' for server push)
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list