Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-20 Thread Kristian Marinkovic
+1 to that. Btw. I just realized that the ETag value is double quoted (""56633""). Is that on purpose? Am 21.01.2014 02:28 schrieb "Howard Lewis Ship" : > That's an interesting trade-off: bandwidth (gzip better) vs. cost of > unzipping (gzip worse). Good thing Tapestry does a good job of letting

Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-20 Thread Howard Lewis Ship
That's an interesting trade-off: bandwidth (gzip better) vs. cost of unzipping (gzip worse). Good thing Tapestry does a good job of letting the client cache the assets! On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Kristian Marinkovic < kristian.marinko...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for all your responses

Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-19 Thread Kristian Marinkovic
Thank you for all your responses and references. What i want to activate is the SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS level that activates whitespace removal and renaming (shortening) of variables and functions. my webapp is getting used more by mobile clients (tablets, phonse) than desktop clients. during testing

Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-17 Thread Howard Lewis Ship
That said, in a HTTP 2.0 world, there isn't such an advantage to aggregation, especially with Tapestry's asset URLs (e.g., the encoding of the content hash into the URL). On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote: > Google Closure is best in a situation where *all* the JavaScript

Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-17 Thread Howard Lewis Ship
Google Closure is best in a situation where *all* the JavaScript that will be part of the page is known statically; it goes beyond other minimizers in that, if you follow certain rules, it can perform real optimizations, such as dead-code analysis and function inlining. It can work with a couple o

Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-17 Thread Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:12:14 -0200, Massimo Lusetti wrote: BTW as a side note I'm not completely sure all these minimization and concatenation are a good thing. Let's think about this a little bit more. Some resources may help: http://rubyrogues.com/135-rr-http-2-0-with-ilya-grigorik/ Fro

Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-17 Thread Massimo Lusetti
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote: What are you looking for? Advanced minimization, unfortunately, doesn't > make sense when you are minimizing multiple files (there can always be a > mix of stacks, libraries, and modules). > > BTW as a side note I'm not completely sure al

Re: Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-16 Thread Howard Lewis Ship
What are you looking for? Advanced minimization, unfortunately, doesn't make sense when you are minimizing multiple files (there can always be a mix of stacks, libraries, and modules). On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Kristian Marinkovic < kristian.marinko...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > ho

Tapestry 5.4-beta-2 GoogleClosureCompiler

2014-01-13 Thread Kristian Marinkovic
Hi all, how do i set additional GoogleClosureMinimizer options? The current implementation in tapestry-webresources doesn't seem to offer any configuration possibilities besides replacing the whole service. cheers, Kris