- From: Justin Lebar <justin.lebar@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:52:20 -0700
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote: > If UAs can assume that files with the same path > are the same regardless of whether they came from a resource package > or which, and they have all but a couple of the files cached, they > could request those directly instead of from the resource package, > even if a resource package is specified. These kinds of heuristics are far beyond the scope of resource packages as we're planning to implement them. Again, I think this type of behavior is the domain of a large change to the networking stack, such as SPDY, not a small hack like resource packages. -Justin On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Justin Lebar <justin.lebar at gmail.com> wrote: >> I think this is a fair point. ?But I'd suggest we consider the following: >> >> * It might be confusing for resources from a resource package to show >> up on a page which doesn't "opt-in" to resource packages in general or >> to that specific resource package. > > Only if the resource package contains a different file from the real > one. ?I suggest we treat this as a pathological case and accept that > it will be broken and confusing -- or at least we consider how many > extra optimizations we could make if we did accept that, before > deciding whether the extra performance is worth the confusion. > >> * There's no easy way to opt out of this behavior. ?That is, if I >> explicitly *don't* want to load content cached from a resource >> package, I have to name that content differently. > > Why would you want that, if the files are the same anyway? > >> * The avatars-on-a-forum use case is less convincing the more I think >> about it. ?Certainly you'd want each page which displays many avatars >> to package up all the avatars into a single package. ?So you wouldn't >> benefit from the suggested caching changes on those pages. > > I don't see why not. ?If UAs can assume that files with the same path > are the same regardless of whether they came from a resource package > or which, and they have all but a couple of the files cached, they > could request those directly instead of from the resource package, > even if a resource package is specified. ?So if twenty different > people post on the page, and you've been browsing for a while and have > eighteen of their avatars (this will be common, a handful of people > tend to account for most posts in a given forum): > > 1) With no resource packages, you fetch two separate avatars (but on > earlier page views you suffered). > > 2) With resource packages as you suggest, you fetch a whole resource > package, 90% of which you don't need. ?In fact, you have to fetch a > resource package even if you have 100% of the avatars on the page! ?No > two pages will be likely to have the same resource package, so you > can't share cache at all. > > 3) With resource packages as I suggest, you fetch only two separate > avatars, *and* you got the benefits of resource packages on earlier > pages. ?The UA gets to guess whether using resource packages would be > a win on a case-by-case basis, so in particular, it should be able to > perform strictly better than either (1) or (2), given decent > heuristics. ?E.g., the heuristic "fetch the resource package if I need > at least two files, fetch the file if I only need one" will perform > better than either (1) or (2) in any reasonable circumstance. > > I think this sort of situation will be fairly common. ?Has anyone > looked at a bunch of different types of web pages and done a breakdown > of how many assets they have, and how they're reused across pages? ?If > we're talking about assets that are used only on one page (image > search) or all pages (logos, shared scripts), your approach works > fine, but not if they're used on a random mix of pages. ?I think a lot > of files will wind up being used on only particular subsets of pages. > >> In general, I think we need something like SPDY to really address the >> problem of duplicated downloads. ?I don't think resource packages can >> fix it with any caching policy. > > Certainly there are limits to what resource packages can do, but we > can wind up closer to the limits or farther from them depending on the > implementation details. >
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 09:52:20 UTC