http://news.qooxdoo.org/towards-package-local-data The qooxdoo news section Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:47:38 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://news.qooxdoo.org/towards-package-local-data/comment-page-1#comment-12448 Thomas Herchenröder Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:54:18 +0000 http://news.qooxdoo.org/?p=2518#comment-12448 @Sebastian It's a first whack at the issue, maybe we'll further adjust this. As I wrote in the post, it's not only about keeping packages at a certain size level. It's about keeping alternative parts separate, together with their resources. In the example with the themes, the packages with the theme classes alone were ultimately small (<1kb), and would have merged easily into a larger package. But as they draw in a lot of resource info, this would have blown up the receiving package beyond 500kb. Blocking the private packages from merging kept each of them on an acceptable 120kb level eventually, and only one of them would be loaded at run time anyway. The others, amounting to about 360kb, could be left on disk. @Sebastian It’s a first whack at the issue, maybe we’ll further adjust this. As I wrote in the post, it’s not only about keeping packages at a certain size level. It’s about keeping alternative parts separate, together with their resources. In the example with the themes, the packages with the theme classes alone were ultimately small (<1kb), and would have merged easily into a larger package. But as they draw in a lot of resource info, this would have blown up the receiving package beyond 500kb. Blocking the private packages from merging kept each of them on an acceptable 120kb level eventually, and only one of them would be loaded at run time anyway. The others, amounting to about 360kb, could be left on disk.

]]> http://news.qooxdoo.org/towards-package-local-data/comment-page-1#comment-12446 Sebastian Werner Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:10:40 +0000 http://news.qooxdoo.org/?p=2518#comment-12446 Interesting post. Just one question. Wouldn't it be more useful to have "keep-private-packages-under" : "20kb" instead of "no-merge-private-package"? Would be a little more flexible. Finally it makes no sense to create a 5KB JS file which is loaded separately, right? Interesting post. Just one question. Wouldn’t it be more useful to have “keep-private-packages-under” : “20kb” instead of “no-merge-private-package”? Would be a little more flexible. Finally it makes no sense to create a 5KB JS file which is loaded separately, right?

]]>