Generic Bundling

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Oct 12 16:26:26 PDT 2013


Le 12/10/2013 21:07, Brendan Eich a écrit :
> 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.
I probably underestimate the importance of content-only websites indeed. 
Do we have numbers? trends?

> 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)?
concatenation and sprites?
He doesn't use the word "bundling", but in his talks and article, Ilya 
Grigorik suggests that inlining resources is the equivalent of server 
push (and bundling in our discussion). It works really well with lots of 
small files.
To a large extent, the problem we have doesn't really exists since 
resources can be inlined. It just requires annoying engineering 
(especially with script execution ordering issues).

David

>
> /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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



More information about the es-discuss mailing list