21–30 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CDN, with local fallback: window.jQuery || document.write(unescape('%3Cscript src="/scripts/jquery-1.x.x.min.js"%3E%3C/script%3E'))
Don't use unescape, is ugly and is not required if you break the close tag of "script". this.jQuery||document.write(' ')
If anyone still needs convincing these CDN'd JS lib are a bad design pattern, check out this presentation from 2012's Black Hat (and also DEFCON) on MITM attacks on them that persist after the user has been exposed (due to indefinite caching of poisoned JS files). http://media.blackhat.com/bh-us-12/Briefings/Alonso/BH_US_12... , or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCNZJ_7f0Hk (quite entertaining presentation) the tl:d…
How often does your average user browse via an anonymous proxy? I doubt most would even know what the hell you are talking about. I can understand for your more clued up or power user, but you give the average user too much credit.
The requirement to trust the admin isn't about the admin MITMing you, but rather trusting their competency in preventing other users MITMing you. Of course the admin could be bad as well.
More generally, I have never understood why people use these third party CDNs for important sites. Don't get me wrong, I understand the bullet points that the Microsoft's and Google's trot out: User more likely to have it cached, more simultaneously open connections since it's a different domain, perhaps less latency etc. But the simple fact of the matter is if the CDN goes down, your site essentially goes down. Ever…
My feeling is that if you're going to make your site's uptime dependent on another, at least make it for something worthwhile that you can't host yourself, either because it's too demanding or too proprietary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CDN, with local fallback: window.jQuery || document.write(unescape('%3Cscript src="/scripts/jquery-1.x.x.min.js"%3E%3C/script%3E'))
If you do overall page loading times, I wonder what sort of averages you will see comparing this to hosting it locally for all requests. When hosted locally it would result in 1 less DNS lookup, as well it could reuse an open HTTP connection to fetch the resource.
So many of these discussion points are discussed at https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/best-practices/rtt
More generally, I have never understood why people use these third party CDNs for important sites. Don't get me wrong, I understand the bullet points that the Microsoft's and Google's trot out: User more likely to have it cached, more simultaneously open connections since it's a different domain, perhaps less latency etc. But the simple fact of the matter is if the CDN goes down, your site essentially goes down. Ever…
I think the idea is that hosts like Google (and ostensibly, Mircosoft) are going to have availability that far exceeds your run-of-the-mill website. Those big hosts generally are going to provide five 9's (or more) availability, whereas %your_random_site% is probably going to be on the order of three to four 9's, at best. So more often than not, the point of failure is going to be your website...not the CDN. If you h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is that hosts like Google (and ostensibly, Mircosoft) are going to have availability that far exceeds your run-of-the-mill website. Those big hosts generally are going to provide five 9's (or more) availability, whereas %your_random_site% is probably going to be on the order of three to four 9's, at best. So more often than not, the point of failure is going to be your website...not the CDN. If you h…
I'm not sure I follow. Obviously if my host goes down my entire site will go down - this is not the point. The point is that when my host is up, what % of the time will my site still be down? Well if you use a CDN that % is greater than zero. If you use two CDN's the percentage is compounded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is that hosts like Google (and ostensibly, Mircosoft) are going to have availability that far exceeds your run-of-the-mill website. Those big hosts generally are going to provide five 9's (or more) availability, whereas %your_random_site% is probably going to be on the order of three to four 9's, at best. So more often than not, the point of failure is going to be your website...not the CDN. If you h…
I agree completely that your average website will have less uptime than the CDN. The problem isn't that the CDNs are less reliable, it's that it's VERY unlikely that your site will experience downtime at the same time as the CDN. This means your site reliability is the combination of the downtime of the CDN as well as your own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is that hosts like Google (and ostensibly, Mircosoft) are going to have availability that far exceeds your run-of-the-mill website. Those big hosts generally are going to provide five 9's (or more) availability, whereas %your_random_site% is probably going to be on the order of three to four 9's, at best. So more often than not, the point of failure is going to be your website...not the CDN. If you h…
I don't understand this logic entirely. If your site is unavailable due to normal, unavoidable probabilities in reasonable uptime, why does it matter if the CDN is hosting your scripts or not? Your site isn't going to be around to access them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is that hosts like Google (and ostensibly, Mircosoft) are going to have availability that far exceeds your run-of-the-mill website. Those big hosts generally are going to provide five 9's (or more) availability, whereas %your_random_site% is probably going to be on the order of three to four 9's, at best. So more often than not, the point of failure is going to be your website...not the CDN. If you h…
If your webserver is down what does it matter that the CDN that hosts your library scripts is up?
More generally, I have never understood why people use these third party CDNs for important sites. Don't get me wrong, I understand the bullet points that the Microsoft's and Google's trot out: User more likely to have it cached, more simultaneously open connections since it's a different domain, perhaps less latency etc. But the simple fact of the matter is if the CDN goes down, your site essentially goes down. Ever…
This is exactly my thought on the matter. It's cool that larger sites will host these scripts for you, but why should I make my site dependent on another just for a negligible improvement in speed / caching efficiency? My feeling is that if you're going to make your site's uptime dependent on another, at least make it for something worthwhile that you can't host yourself, either because it's too demanding or too prop…
That's a terrible idea, and of course you shouldn't do that.
You provide a fallback for the CDN...