On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Ashley Sheridan <ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 28 August 2016 01:31:50 BST, Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@ > gmail.com> wrote: > >On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Joshua Kehn <josh.kehn@xxxxxxxxx> > >wrote: > > > >> Apache handles gzipping just fine. http://httpd.apache.org/ > >> docs/current/mod/mod_deflate.html > >> > >> and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when > >evaluating > >> content and js for specific URLs > >> > >> > >> I'm not sure why that would be required. Why doesn't the HTML > >reference > >> the assets required directly? > >> > > > > > >that would result in *way* too many HTTP requests dude ;) > > > You're doing it wrong > > >i'm thinking i evaluate what URL is called up in PHP, figure out what > >cache > What's wrong with front end evaluating what js it needs to request, like > angular or react does? > >files are needed (i now use multiple stages of cache files for some > >stuff > >like the main HTML template), and output a new "master cache file" that > >is > >a file that gets called up rather quickly with readfile() after a > >file_exists(translateURLtoFilesystempath($untranslatedContentURL)) to > >see > >if regeneration for any particular URL is needed.. > > > >public function translateURLtoFilesystempath ($url) { > > $r = $url; > > $r = str_replace('/','---',$r); > > $r = str_replace('?','-_-',$r); > > $r = str_replace('&','__-',$r); > > $r = str_replace('=','___',$r); > > return '--_'.$r; > >} > >public function translateFilesystempathToURL ($path) { > > $r = preg_replace ('#.*--_#', '', $path); > > $r = str_replace('---','/',$r); > > $r = str_replace('-_-','?',$r); > > $r = str_replace('__-','&',$r); > > $r = str_replace('___','=',$r); > > return $r; > >} > > > > > > > > > >> > >> and for noobish developers it might be very convenient to add this to > >php > >> readfile() afterall > >> > >> > >> Convenient and right are often two different ways to solve a problem. > >I > >> try to not offer convenient solutions that are not right. > >> > > > >yea, that's the C++ attitude ;) you do know C++ got dinosaured for a > >*more > >simple and intuitive* C# right? ;) > > That's not what happened at all. C++ is alive and well, C# has always > served a different purpose > > > > >> > >> --jk > >> > >> On Aug 27, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@ > >> gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> yea ok.. "something upstream".. is that nginx easy to stack above / > >next > >> to / under apache2? i'm really used to apache2.. > >> and for noobish developers it might be very convenient to add this to > >php > >> readfile() afterall.. > >> > >> and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when > >evaluating > >> content and js for specific URLs to fit in a common HTML site > >template for > >> instance.. > >> you know of a better way? i'm all ears :) > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Joshua Kehn <josh.kehn@xxxxxxxxx> > >wrote: > >> > >>> Why is PHP handling static file serving? This is squarely outside of > >it's > >>> domain. Have nginx or something upstream handle gzipping content. > >>> > >>> --jk > >>> > >>> > On Aug 27, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Rene Veerman < > >>> rene.veerman.netherlands@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > eh no, i'm a big fan of caching output in js / json cache files :) > >>> > but those still need to get gzipped... not just my main JS file, > >also my > >>> > photoalbum contents -> another 1Mb of JSON content... > >>> > > >>> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Ashley Sheridan < > >>> ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On 27 August 2016 17:52:48 BST, Rene Veerman > ><rene.veerman.netherlands@ > >>> >> gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> Hi.. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> First off, i love PHP. Many thanks for keeping it free too. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> However, i've noticed that gzipping the 1Mb of javascript that > >my > >>> >>> seductiveapps.com needs, takes a relatively long time (measured > >over > >>> a > >>> >>> total page load time which i'd like to bring down from it's > >current 10 > >>> >>> seconds, about a second or even more is spent gzipping (by a > >core i5 > >>> >>> machine)).. > >>> >> > >>> >> Are you building the js each time it's requested? Have you > >thought > >>> about > >>> >> building it as a deployment step for production? > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> At one time, i spent time building PHP code that cached the > >>> >>> already-gzipped > >>> >>> content and outputted that with just readfile().. But i never > >got it > >>> to > >>> >>> work a second time, unfortunately.. > >>> >> Why don't you want the web server to handle the gzip side of > >things? It > >>> >> would make more sense surely? > >>> >> > >>> >>> Could you pretty please add this to the core of PHP? Shouldn't > >be that > >>> >>> hard > >>> >>> for the internals team right?.. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Many thanks in advance for even considering to do this.. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> with regards, > >>> >>> Rene Veerman, > >>> >>> CEO + CTO of seductiveapps.com > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my > >brevity. > >>> >> > >>> > >> > >> > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Combine all of your JS to 1 file, minimize it and then serve it. After initial load it should be fine. That is how most systems I worked on with it and works fine. The browser won't have to download it multiple times (depending on user settings). 1MB of javascript is huuuuuge, I don't want to say you are doing it wrong, but something is going on. jQuery library itself is just 85kb compressed. As a developer, the way I do it is make sure that my architecture design is correct (which language/systems/etc.. to use). Once that is done for my purpose, the language usually doesn't matter.
