 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / ASP.NET / General / February 2008using WebResource.axd to reference .js files
I always been using .js files directly thus allowing myself to control caching of them... If I add .js files to assembly then reference is looking like this /DragDropTest/WebResource.axd?d=Zi4hg60qpn9AQZGLKlz2Eg2&t=633331472507562215 It's more convenient to have related .js file as a resource in DLL but question is: How big is a runtime penalty for this? George. > I always been using .js files directly thus allowing myself to control > caching of them... > > If I add .js files to assembly then reference is looking like this /DragDropTest/WebResource.axd?d=Zi4hg60qpn9AQZGLKlz2Eg2&t=63333147250756 2215 > It's more convenient to have related .js file as a resource in DLL but > question is: > How big is a runtime penalty for this? A couple of questions you could answer using www.fiddlertool.com would be:- a) does that URL remain the same until the the .axd until the axd is recompiled or does it change more frequently b) what are headers that affect local caching are sent (ETag, Last-Modified, Expires, Cache-Control) with the response. If the URL doesn't keep changing and resonable values are being sent in the headers then you can be comfortable that most of the time such a resource request would be handled by a cache rather than invoke the runtime at all.  SignatureAnthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET I have done that.... Cons: 1. URLs do get cached by browser. 2. Parameters do not change as long as application is not restarted.... (which is acceptable) Negs: 1. Browser still sends separate request to check if file was updated. It does get 304 evrytime though. 2. You can not specify your own header information. IE supports following header "Cache-Control: max-age=2592000;post-check=36000,pre-check=432000" this eliminates #1. It's like browser is guaranteed that file will not be changed for that much of time. Google post-check/pre-check.. Unclear: Still not clear what would be better (in terms of performance). Hit file system for static .js file or hit .NET runtime to get resource with WebResource.axd. Thanks George. >> I always been using .js files directly thus allowing myself to control >> caching of them... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > headers then you can be comfortable that most of the time such a resource > request would be handled by a cache rather than invoke the runtime at all. > I have done that.... > > Cons: I think you mean 'Pros', right? > 1. URLs do get cached by browser. > 2. Parameters do not change as long as application is not restarted.... > (which is acceptable) > > Negs: This would be the 'Cons' > 1. Browser still sends separate request to check if file was updated. It > does get 304 evrytime though. Does the request include the pragma: no-cache header. If so you're using refresh. When using refresh IE will push requests for other static resources through the cache with the aforementioned header. Also by default it typically will make use the same approach when first fetching the page in a session. Therefore you will see this if you close and re-open IE. Try just navigating to it from another page and see what happens. > 2. You can not specify your own header information. IE supports following > header "Cache-Control: max-age=2592000;post-check=36000,pre-check=432000" > this eliminates #1. It's like browser is guaranteed that file will not be > changed for that much of time. Google post-check/pre-check.. Yes any change to the source would result in an new URL (it what I call an immutable URL) so any single URL will only ever be associated with specific content. > Unclear: > Still not clear what would be better (in terms of performance). Hit file > system for static .js file or hit .NET runtime to get resource with > WebResource.axd. Well the static is always going to be quicker but by the looks of it not by any amount that matters even in extreme circumstances. SignatureAnthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET 1. You got it right about Pros and Cons..... I messed up there :) 2. About 304... You right, I did the test and it turned out browser does not hit server each time. Only if it was closed and reopened (or F5 was hit). --------------------------------------------------- With Cache-Control: max-age=2592000;post-check=36000,pre-check=432000 it does not even send request when it was closed and opened again. And if you hit F5 then IE rechecks (and caches) files in background thread. That makes page to appear instantly.... To see it in a work hit this url (open it, IE will cache images, close IE and open this URL again). http://www.mspiercing.com/Group/belly-button-rings-38.aspx?SortType=0 I am using the Cache-Control for pictures of items. You will notice that page just instantly appears (when you hit it second time) with images (it has a lot of images) as opposed to "conventional" page where IE will show empty spot until it sends request to the server (even though images were cached) and gets 304. I wish I could add those headers to WebResource.axd. Too bad only IE supports it good this is that IE is about 80% of all browsers:) Thanks George. >> I have done that.... >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > by > any amount that matters even in extreme circumstances. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.