Comments on: Faster Page Loads - Bundle Your CSS and Javascript http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:28:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Christian Winther http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-747050 Christian Winther Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:49:16 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-747050 Hello I have created such a script for ligghtpd (using mod_magnet and lua). It can be found at here: <a href="http://www.cakephp.nu/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript-lighttpd-mod_magnet-lua" rel="nofollow">Faster page loads: Bundle your css and javascript with lighttpd and mod_magnet (lua)</a> Hello

I have created such a script for ligghtpd (using mod_magnet and lua). It can be found at here:

Faster page loads: Bundle your css and javascript with lighttpd and mod_magnet (lua)

]]> By: David http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-576489 David Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:36:57 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-576489 Hmmm, old thing I've found on the Internet, but I need to say that any effort to speed things up for the end-user is good effort. That said, the idea is great! Hmmm, old thing I’ve found on the Internet, but I need to say that any effort to speed things up for the end-user is good effort. That said, the idea is great!

]]> By: ramesh effic http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-244094 ramesh effic Thu, 10 May 2007 04:59:23 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-244094 can i set proxy page until original page is downloaded from server in jsp can i set proxy page until original page is downloaded from server

in jsp

]]> By: AlexW http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-233913 AlexW Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:57:32 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-233913 <blockquote>It seems to me that most of this effort is pointless. In almost all cases CSS, JS, and images are cached by the browser after the first view. Thus, when viewing a second page on the same site, it shouldn’t be making more requests for CSS or JS files, and should only request the images it hasn’t already cached.</blockquote> That's assuming they get as far as looking at a second page. Many people will typically be loading 3,4 or 5 tabs simultaneously, and if one of those hasn't started rendering a usable page in a few seconds. they'll click the 'X' and concentrate on the other tabs that have. A user hasn't received anything of value for you at that point so they have no perception of loss if they leave. That makes the first ever page load far more important than <strong>any</strong> future page load. Even if the user knows your site but hasn't visited for a few months (so no cached version) getting them the first page load quickly is critical to getting them to re-commit to you and not an alternative site. This is equally true whether you're running a blog, a forum, an online store or a content site.

It seems to me that most of this effort is pointless. In almost all cases CSS, JS, and images are cached by the browser after the first view. Thus, when viewing a second page on the same site, it shouldn’t be making more requests for CSS or JS files, and should only request the images it hasn’t already cached.

That’s assuming they get as far as looking at a second page. Many people will typically be loading 3,4 or 5 tabs simultaneously, and if one of those hasn’t started rendering a usable page in a few seconds. they’ll click the ‘X’ and concentrate on the other tabs that have.

A user hasn’t received anything of value for you at that point so they have no perception of loss if they leave. That makes the first ever page load far more important than any future page load.

Even if the user knows your site but hasn’t visited for a few months (so no cached version) getting them the first page load quickly is critical to getting them to re-commit to you and not an alternative site. This is equally true whether you’re running a blog, a forum, an online store or a content site.

]]> By: Paul Annesley http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-233875 Paul Annesley Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:36:25 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-233875 @Eviltechie: The bundle will certainly be cached by the browser after the first load - we're certainly not forcing every page to include all CSS and JS. @bart: Also keep in mind that clicking the reload button in Firefox is different to visiting the page again - you're telling Firefox that you want to re-download the content. @Eviltechie: The bundle will certainly be cached by the browser after the first load - we’re certainly not forcing every page to include all CSS and JS.

@bart: Also keep in mind that clicking the reload button in Firefox is different to visiting the page again - you’re telling Firefox that you want to re-download the content.

]]> By: bart http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-233784 bart Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:53:07 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-233784 OK. I think I was wrong in the last comment. It seems that Firebug may be a bit misleading for displaying the css and js files as not cached. When you click to see the headers of the css and js files there is a timestamp. If you navigate through the site and the timestamp doesn't change, then I guess it's safe to assume that FF cached the files. I also tried something else. To verify I cleared browser cache and then input about:cache in the address bar in a new tag. Both memory cache and disk cache were 0. Then I refreshed the page in question and refreshed the about:cache tab. The correct number of requests was displayed in both memory and disk caches. When you drill down you'll see that the files are in one of the caches. OK. I think I was wrong in the last comment. It seems that Firebug may be a bit misleading for displaying the css and js files as not cached. When you click to see the headers of the css and js files there is a timestamp. If you navigate through the site and the timestamp doesn’t change, then I guess it’s safe to assume that FF cached the files. I also tried something else. To verify I cleared browser cache and then input about:cache in the address bar in a new tag. Both memory cache and disk cache were 0. Then I refreshed the page in question and refreshed the about:cache tab. The correct number of requests was displayed in both memory and disk caches. When you drill down you’ll see that the files are in one of the caches.

]]> By: busy http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-233778 busy Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:38:12 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-233778 @eviltechie I don't think it's pointless. It's true what you say about caching for future page loads, but the point of this is to speed up loading for someone's first impression of your site. Regardless if you think first impressions aren't valuable enough to warrant the extra work, that's the point of the article. Also why do you say subsequent loads using this method won't cache? It's the exact same request for pages that use the same combination of files, so why wouldn't it? If another one is added in the mix on another page you would still have to download it before it would be cached anyways, so I don't see any difference in downloading the new bundle for that page. @eviltechie
I don’t think it’s pointless. It’s true what you say about caching for future page loads, but the point of this is to speed up loading for someone’s first impression of your site. Regardless if you think first impressions aren’t valuable enough to warrant the extra work, that’s the point of the article.

Also why do you say subsequent loads using this method won’t cache? It’s the exact same request for pages that use the same combination of files, so why wouldn’t it? If another one is added in the mix on another page you would still have to download it before it would be cached anyways, so I don’t see any difference in downloading the new bundle for that page.

]]> By: bart http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-233774 bart Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:30:56 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-233774 I've noticed that Firefox 2 does not cache js and css files at all. I'm using firebug to verify this. If you hit refresh none of the files are cached. Only when you navigate back to the page you came from will you see that images were cached and js and css were not. Can anyone verify that this is default behavior in FF or is this some setting I turned on and forgot about. Thanks. I’ve noticed that Firefox 2 does not cache js and css files at all. I’m using firebug to verify this. If you hit refresh none of the files are cached. Only when you navigate back to the page you came from will you see that images were cached and js and css were not. Can anyone verify that this is default behavior in FF or is this some setting I turned on and forgot about. Thanks.

]]> By: Eviltechie http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-233596 Eviltechie Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:05:39 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-233596 It seems to me that most of this effort is pointless. In almost all cases CSS, JS, and images are cached by the browser after the first view. Thus, when viewing a second page on the same site, it shouldn't be making more requests for CSS or JS files, and should only request the images it hasn't already cached. For high traffic sites, forcing every page to include all of your CSS and JS could greatly increase your bandwidth usage. For the tests you've shown to be valid, you should compare first page load times with subsequent page load times. Using your method, they're all going to be the same. Allowing the browser to cache things you'll see the first page taking longer to load, and subsequent pages loading much faster. It seems to me that most of this effort is pointless. In almost all cases CSS, JS, and images are cached by the browser after the first view. Thus, when viewing a second page on the same site, it shouldn’t be making more requests for CSS or JS files, and should only request the images it hasn’t already cached.

For high traffic sites, forcing every page to include all of your CSS and JS could greatly increase your bandwidth usage.

For the tests you’ve shown to be valid, you should compare first page load times with subsequent page load times. Using your method, they’re all going to be the same. Allowing the browser to cache things you’ll see the first page taking longer to load, and subsequent pages loading much faster.

]]> By: Paul Annesley http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/10/faster-page-loads-bundle-your-css-and-javascript/#comment-231748 Paul Annesley Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:45:00 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1896#comment-231748 @cranial-bore: Thanks for the report, however sitepointstatic.com is not offline. I've followed this up with you via email. @cranial-bore: Thanks for the report, however sitepointstatic.com is not offline.
I’ve followed this up with you via email.

]]>