[whatwg] Browser Bundled Javascript Repository

[Joseph Pecoraro]

> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Joseph Pecoraro  
> <joepeck02 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dion: The problem here is that isn't backwards compatible and thus  
>> no-one will really be able to use it.
>
> I thought the original idea was backwards compatible. Maybe not the  
> URN Schemes. If the original idea is not, could you point out the  
> issues?
>
> The URN schemes isn't compatible. The SHA hash idea is do-able, but  
> as Oliver pointed out is impractical: a) devs will forget to update  
> it, b) looks ugly, c) fun things would happen with a SHA collision! ;)

a) Solved by Validation - I can't think of anything much better then  
that. =(
b) Canonical Listing - This shouldn't be too difficult to distribute  
from a central source or some convention.
c) Hehe, I think I detect a hint of sarcasm.  If there is a SHA1  
collision then you'd probably make a lot of money!


>  Dion: You then also get into the "how do I get my library into the  
> browser?"
>
> Enough widespread usage of a library is a clear indicator for  
> adoption into a browser bundle.  Dynamically growing repositories  
> could optimize per computer for the particular user's browsing  
> habits (assuming developers would mark their scripts with the  
> identifiers).
>
> You can have the same problem with what libraries will Google  
> include in its CDN.  Although it may be easier for Google to host  
> just about any library if it already has a CDN setup.
>
> This was a real problem for us. How much is "enough" ? We started to  
> get inundated with requests for people to put libraries up there.

Lets the browsers decide.  And I can't make any reasonable suggestions  
without getting real world data, something I haven't tried to do yet.   
But yes, this is a good point, something that is extremely flexible /  
variable.


>  Dion: After mulling this over with the Google CDN work, I think  
> that using HTTP and the browser mechanisms that we have now gives us  
> a lot without any of these issues.
>
> I was afraid of this.  This is a completely valid point.  I guess it  
> sounds like too much work for too little gain?
>
> I don't want to stop you from working on these ideas. The core  
> problem that we tend to download the same crap all the time is real,  
> and I look forward to seeing people come up with interesting  
> solutions.

Thanks for the support.  My thoughts are beginning to look like this:
- Javascript Frameworks are downloaded all the time on many domains.  
This is a special case.
- Those who benefit the most are the ones that can't space the extra  
request or large caches.  This makes me think mobile browsers would  
get the biggest benefit.
- I think the iPhone had some special html syntax for its mobile  
webpages, maybe they can sneak this in if it proves useful to them.

- Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090615/8e4b41fa/attachment-0002.htm>