Is jquery-ui-1.8.6.custom.min.js needed?

[jonatan soto]

Hi,

Well, may the subject cause some ambiguity. Of course some things of that
file are needed.

What I meant is, if it is worth to load the entire file every (200KB) time
 a page is loaded. What I see here is that we can split that file and use
them individually. It is just my appreciation that this script is consuming
almost the 30% of page size. And I am not sure at all but I guess that's
only a 5~10% of this script is really used. If I am right it would great in
order to reduce bandwidth usage and let the page loads faster.

What do you think?

--
-----

Jonatan Soto

[jonatan soto]

Have in mind that the file is already minified.

One thing that takes down my arguments, is that the file is download the
first time it's accessed, then it's cached by the browsers most of the
times.... Maybe it is not a big deal...

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jonatan Soto <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Well, may the subject cause some ambiguity. Of course some things of that
> file are needed.
>
> What I meant is, if it is worth to load the entire file every (200KB) time
>  a page is loaded. What I see here is that we can split that file and use
> them individually. It is just my appreciation that this script is consuming
> almost the 30% of page size. And I am not sure at all but I guess that's
> only a 5~10% of this script is really used. If I am right it would great in
> order to reduce bandwidth usage and let the page loads faster.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> -----
>
> Jonatan Soto
>

--
-----

Jonatan Soto

[Jacques Le Roux]

Don't worry it's cached in browser cache

Jacques

From: "Jonatan Soto" <[hidden email]>

> Hi,
>
> Well, may the subject cause some ambiguity. Of course some things of that
> file are needed.
>
> What I meant is, if it is worth to load the entire file every (200KB) time
> a page is loaded. What I see here is that we can split that file and use
> them individually. It is just my appreciation that this script is consuming
> almost the 30% of page size. And I am not sure at all but I guess that's
> only a 5~10% of this script is really used. If I am right it would great in
> order to reduce bandwidth usage and let the page loads faster.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> -----
>
> Jonatan Soto
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jonatan Soto" <[hidden email]>
> Have in mind that the file is already minified.
>
> One thing that takes down my arguments, is that the file is download the
> first time it's accessed, then it's cached by the browsers most of the
> times.... Maybe it is not a big deal...

Exactly: I was just answering your 1st email "Don't worry it's cached in browser cache"

Jacques
 

> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jonatan Soto <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, may the subject cause some ambiguity. Of course some things of that
>> file are needed.
>>
>> What I meant is, if it is worth to load the entire file every (200KB) time
>>  a page is loaded. What I see here is that we can split that file and use
>> them individually. It is just my appreciation that this script is consuming
>> almost the 30% of page size. And I am not sure at all but I guess that's
>> only a 5~10% of this script is really used. If I am right it would great in
>> order to reduce bandwidth usage and let the page loads faster.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> --
>> -----
>>
>> Jonatan Soto
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -----
>
> Jonatan Soto
>

[David E. Jones-2]

This is something that needs to be considered. For plain HTTP these files will often be cached, but there are some exceptions to that. For HTTPS these files are generally not cached.

-David


On Dec 18, 2010, at 6:00 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Don't worry it's cached in browser cache
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jonatan Soto" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi,
>> Well, may the subject cause some ambiguity. Of course some things of that
>> file are needed.
>> What I meant is, if it is worth to load the entire file every (200KB) time
>> a page is loaded. What I see here is that we can split that file and use
>> them individually. It is just my appreciation that this script is consuming
>> almost the 30% of page size. And I am not sure at all but I guess that's
>> only a 5~10% of this script is really used. If I am right it would great in
>> order to reduce bandwidth usage and let the page loads faster.
>> What do you think?
>> --
>> -----
>> Jonatan Soto
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Looks like things are changing http://stackoverflow.com/questions/174348/will-web-browsers-cache-content-over-https

A good reference http://www.web-caching.com/mnot_tutorial/how.html#WORK

Also most of the time the ERP side will be used on a LAN, where it's less a problem (200k hu! , it remember me 5"1/4 ;o). But yes,
this could be a problem for SAAS... But even then I guess it only needs to set correctly headers and servers rather than mucking
around with js files (update, maintenance, etc.)

A small saturday story: where we live we can't get the terrestrial/hertzian TV, so we use satellite (a free one, we don't like to
pay every month for TV, there are enough advts). So far it was analogue but now that all TV is digital in France we finally decided
to bought a digital satellite demodulator 1 month ago. And last week my ISP makes me a proposition to have now also TV by ADSL. I
pay 5 euros less by month on my ADSL subscription (weird, and I feel it will change in the future -VAT in Europa-, but that's
another story). And guess what? It only takes half of my bandwidth which is around 650 KB/sec (ie 5200+ bauds). Anyway, most of the
time, I still prefer to "work" :D

Jacques

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

> This is something that needs to be considered. For plain HTTP these files will often be cached, but there are some exceptions to
> that. For HTTPS these files are generally not cached.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2010, at 6:00 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Don't worry it's cached in browser cache
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jonatan Soto" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi,
>>> Well, may the subject cause some ambiguity. Of course some things of that
>>> file are needed.
>>> What I meant is, if it is worth to load the entire file every (200KB) time
>>> a page is loaded. What I see here is that we can split that file and use
>>> them individually. It is just my appreciation that this script is consuming
>>> almost the 30% of page size. And I am not sure at all but I guess that's
>>> only a 5~10% of this script is really used. If I am right it would great in
>>> order to reduce bandwidth usage and let the page loads faster.
>>> What do you think?
>>> --
>>> -----
>>> Jonatan Soto
>>>
>>
>