In our HTML page, we have a list of tags to load in many (small) JavaScript source files.
For deployment we plan to concatenate the individual JavaScript files into one bundle which will be included in the HTML page, to save on 'expensive' HTTP requests.
But would it be even more beneficial, to just write all the JavaScript directly into the HTML file, in an in-line Javascript tag?
If the JavaScript code changes on every request ("tags"?), then yes, it's beneficial.
Otherwise: No, because the browser will not be able to cache the JS files.
the best way would be to concatenate them but don't put them directly into you html-file. that way the js-file can be cached independently from the (probably) changing html-source.
A file is better than writing the whole stuff into the HTML, as you can cache the javascript file coming from your server, but unless you cache all .html files, you won't get this benefit (i.e. browsers have to keep redownloading all the inline scripts inside your html files)
But would it be even more beneficial, to just write all the JavaScript directly into the HTML file, in an in-line Javascript tag?
No! You would increase the size of every request and destroy cacheability. One big (but external) JS file is the way to go.
Make sure the JS file is emitting the proper caching headers, and it will be loaded only once per client. Unless your JS is exceedingly small (and your description doesn't sound so), that's pretty much the optimum.
I'd suggest that you compile all your javascript into one file and load it with one <script> tag. Yes, HTTP requests take some time, and browsers limit number of concurrent requests (to one domain).
I wouldn't put all javascript in the HTML, because this is mixing logic and representation, prevents caching (of javascript), etc. Avoid this.
This is the general rule I follow: separate content that changes often from content that changes rarely. This way static content will be cached efficiently. And you can optimize "fluid" content (gzip, minify, etc.) so that it takes less time to load.
I'm assuming that you mean 'embed inside a <script> block' rather than in 'on*' attributes inside the HTML elements. If that's not the case, the answer is a definite no - 'on*' attributes are harder to maintain, and typically bad for accessibility.
Normally the answer is no, because although the user's first request will be more expensive if it has to get external resources, those resources will be cached so future requests will be cheaper. If you embed everything, the user has to load them every time they load the page.
So it depends on a few things, the most important of which are probably:
Are users browsing multiple pages? Will they return? If the answer to both questions is 'no', then there is no benefit from caching, so embedded JavaScript can be quicker.
Is the JavaScript static? If it's dynamic - as in, changes on every page load, then again, caching is irrelevant. You could probably improve your JavaScript architecture to separate the static bits from the dynamic.
You can mix the JavaScript so that static JavaScript is linked, while dynamic or page-specific JavaScript is embedded. This is especially useful with libraries - it may already be cached in the client from another site, but if not, you're still loading from a CDN like Google, so it's very quick.
I wouldn't have thought so.
I always just include files and try to keep my base html looking as clean as possible.
Die hards will say don't do it, separate content from styles and scripting, and I agree. But if its not a lot of JS, you may as well save on any additional HTTP requests. Yes, the browser won't cache it, but that's because it won't need to. And on an SEO basis, Page ranking is improved with faster page load, determined possibly on first visit, not after a cache.
Related
A typical website consists of one index.html file and a bunch of javascript and css files. To improve the performance of the website, one can:
Minify the javascript and css files, to reduce the file sizes.
Concatenate the javascript files into one file and similar for the css files, to reduce the number of requests to the server. For commonly used (and shared) libraries like jquery it makes sense to leave them external, allowing the browser to cache the library and reuse it in different web applications.
I'm wondering if it makes sense to put the concatenated javascript and css file inline in on single html file, which will reduce the number of requests even further. Will this improve the performance of your site? Or will it work reversed, making it impossible for the browser to cache anything?
Concatinating your CSS and JS files into one file will reduce the number of requests and make it load faster. But as commented, it won't make much sense unless you have a one-page site and the load time of that page is very critical. So you're better off to separate CSS from Javascript in my opinion.
Here's a book where you can learn more about the topic:
High Performance Web Sites
this tools maybe help you.
Turns your web page to a single HTML file with everything inlined - perfect for appcache manifests on mobile devices that you want to reduce those http requests.
https://github.com/remy/inliner
It would cut down on the number of requests but it would also mean no caching of those for use on other pages. Think of defining an external file as also a way to tell the browser "and this section of the site is reusable". You'd be taking that ability away and so the CSS and JS would load. Like jackwanders said it's great if you only have one page.
This is not a good idea for the following reasons:
You will not enjoy the benefit of cache
You will load unneeded resources in all of your pages
You will have a hard time while developing your website because of large files with unrelated code branches
If you work in a team you will have to work with your teammates on the same files always, which means that you will have a lot of merge conflicts.
You can have a single CSS for all your pages and since it will be cached, the subsequent pages will refer it from cache without sending extra request.
However, putting all Javascript files is into one is contextual.
Most probably you might be using libraries like jQuery, and relevant plugins. This 'might' throw conflicting issues between plugins. So, before you try it all at once, try merging few files at once and checking if the error pops or not.
Although it is always recommended to put JavaScript and CSS code into appropriate files (as .js and .css), most of major websites (like Amazon, facebook, etc.) put a significant part of their JavaScript and CSS code directly within the main HTML page.
Where is the best choice?
Place your .js in multiple files, then package, minify and gzip that into one file.
Keep your HTML into multiple seperate files.
Place your .css in multiple files, then package, minify and gzip that into one file.
Then you simply send one css file and one js file to the client to be cached.
You do not inline them with your HTML.
If you inline them then any change to the css or html or js forces to user to download all three again.
The main reason major websites have js & cs in their files, is because major websites code rot. Major companies don't uphold standards and best practices, they just hack it until it works then say "why waste money on our website, it works doesn't it?".
Don't look at examples of live websites, because 99% of all examples on the internet show bad practices.
Also for the love of god, Separation of concerns please. You should never ever use inline javascript or inline css in html pages.
http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#external
Yahoo (even though they have many inline styles and scripts), recommends making them external. I believe google page speed used to (or still does?) do the same as well.
It's really a logical thing to have them separate. There are so many benefits to keeping CSS and JS separate to the HTML. Things like logical code management, caching of those pages, lower page size (would you rather a ~200ms request for a 400kb cached resource, or a 4000ms delay from having to download that data on every page?), SEO options (less crap for google to look through when scripts/styles are external), easier to minify external scripts (online tools etc), can load them synchronously from different servers....
That should be your primary objective in any website. All styles that make up your whole website should be in the one file (or files for each page, then merged and minified when updated), the same for javascript.
In the real world (not doing a project for yourself, doing one for a client or stakeholder that wants results), the only time where it doesn't make sense to load in another javascript resource or another stylesheet (and thus use inline styles/javascript) is if there's some kind of dynamic information that is on a kind of per-user, per-session or per-time-period that can't be accomplished as simply any other way. Example: when my website has a promotion, we dump a script tag with a small JSON object of information. Because we don't minify and merge multiple files, it makes more sense to just include it in the page. Sure there are other ways to do this, but it costs $20 to do that, whereas it could cost > $100 to do it another way.
Perhaps Amazon/Facebook/Google etc use so much inline code is so their servers aren't taxed so much. I'm not too sure on the benchmarking between requesting a 1MB file in one hit or requesting 10 100KB files (presuming 1MB/10 = 100KB for examples' sake), but what would be faster? Potentially the 1MB file, BUT smaller requests can be loaded synchronously, meaning each one of those 10 requests could come from a separate server/domain potentially, thus reducing overall load time.
Further, google homepages for example seem to dump a JSON array of information for the widgets, presumably because it compiles all that information from various sources, minifies it, caches it, then puts in on the page, then the javascript functions build the layout (client side processing power rather than server-side).
An interesting investigation might be whether they include various .css files regardless of the style blocks you're also seeing. Perhaps it's overhead or perhaps it's convenience.
I've found that while working with different styles of interface developer (and content deployers) that convenience/authority often wins in the face of deadlines and "getting the job done". In a project of a large scale there could be factors involved like "No, you ain't touching our stylesheets", or perhaps if there isn't a stylesheet using an http request already then convenience has won a battle against good practice.
If your css and javascript code is for a global usage, then it is best to put them into appropriate files.
Otherwise, if the code is used just by a certain page, like the home page, put them directly into html is acceptable, and is good for maintenance.
Our team keeps it all seperate. All resources like this goes into a folder called _Content.
CSS goes into _Content/css/xxx.js
JS goes into _Content/js/lib/xxx.js (For all the library packages)
Custom page events and functions get called from the page, but are put into a main JS file in _Content/js/Main.js
Images will go into the same place under _Content/images/xxx.x
This is just how we lay it out as it keeps the HTML markup as it should be, for markup.
I think putting css and js into the main html makes the page loads fast.
I use External JavaScripts in a website as I always try to keep JavaScript at bottom and external.
But Google page speed is giving this suggestion
The following external resources have small response bodies. Inlining
the response in HTML can reduce blocking of page rendering.
http://websiteurl/ should inline the following small resources:
http://websiteurl/script.js
This external js file has only this content
$(document).ready(function() {
$("#various2").fancybox({
'width': 485,
'height': 691,
});
});
But in Yslow I get this suggestion
Grade n/a on Make JavaScript and CSS external
Only consider this if your property is a common user home page.
There are a total of 3 inline scripts
JavaScript and CSS that are inlined in HTML documents get downloaded
each time the HTML document is requested. This reduces the number of
HTTP requests but increases the HTML document size. On the other hand,
if the JavaScript and CSS are in external files cached by the browser,
the HTML document size is reduced without increasing the number of
HTTP requests.
Which is right Google or Yahoo?
This is a bit of a problematic example, on quite a few fronts.
You can organise your scripts in such a way that you do not need to inline that JS. For example you could have a common.js file that runs that snippet, other similar snippets and simplifies your code.
Additionally, this seems to have awoken "never inline any JavaScript EVER" architecture police. Turns out that sometimes it is a best practice to inline JavaScript, for example look at the common snippet from Google analytics.
Why are Google suggesting you should inline this tiny script?
Because 20% of the page visits you get have an unprimed cache
If you have a cache miss, it is likely a new connection to your site will need to be opened (1 round trip) and then the data delivered in the 2nd round trip. (if you are lucky you get to use a keepalive connection and it is cut to 1 round trip.
For a general "global" English web application you are looking at a typical 110ms round trip time for a service hosted in the US. If you are using a CDN the number would probably be halved.
Even if the resource is local, the web browser may still need to access the disk to grab that tiny file.
Non async or defer JavaScript script tags are blocking, if this script is somewhere in the middle of your page, it will be stuck there until the script downloads.
From a performance perspective if the only 2 options are:
Place a 50 char JavaScript bit inline
Place the 50 chars in a separate file and serve it.
Considering that you are a good web citizen and compress all your content, the amount of additional payload this adds is negligible compared to the 20 percent risk of giving people a considerable delay. I would always choose #1.
In an imperfect world it is very rare to have such a clear and easy set of options. There is an option 3 that involved async loading jQuery and grabbing this functionality from a common area.
Making scripts inline can have some detrimental effects -
a) Code organization - Your code gets scattered in between your markup, thus affecting readability
b) Code Minification and obfuscation becomes difficult
Its best to keep your js in seperate files, and then at build time integrate all of them into a single file, and minify and obfuscate this.
This is not quite true. You can configure the web server (well atleast apache) to make the scrips/ccs inlined when they are served.
Here is a useful link
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/mod_pagespeed/
There are two factors to consider here. One is download time, the other is maintainability. Both of these are impacted by how many times a piece of Javascript is needed.
With respect to download time, you obviously have two choices: include the JS in the body of the page, or as an external file. Including the JS in the body does save an extra HTTP request, although it also bloats the HTML a bit and can be a pain to maintain if you have several scripts you're putting inline on several different pages.
Another important consideration is whether or not the JS is needed immediately on the page. If a small piece of JS is needed as soon as the page loads, then putting it inline may be a good idea. If it's being used for something asynchronous in the future, then putting it an external file may still be a good choice.
I usually write javascript inline, especially if the script is this small. I would say just paste it in your code. It won't increase the http document size by a lot.
While inlining the script will save a request, as Yslow suggests it increases the HTML document size, and mixes content/markup with code/logic, which you generally want to avoid from as much as possible.
The reason Yslow gives this caveat:
Only consider this if your property is a common user home page.
Is that if the page is loaded frequently, it's worth it to have the javascript external, since the files will be cached in the browser. So, if you combine your JS into one file, on the first request you incur one extra request, and on subsequent requests the file is loaded from the cache.
Aaron Peters talk from last year's Velocity EU gives a good insight into the options, and course you should choose - http://www.slideshare.net/startrender/fast-loading-javascript
For really small snippet of js it's really not worth putting them in an external file as the network overhead of retrieving them will dwarf the benefits.
Depending on the latency it may be ever worth including large scripts e.g. Bind mobile has loads of js in the first page loaded which it then cached in localstorage for later pages.
Addy Osmani recently put together a experimental library to help people play with caching scripts in localstorage - http://addyosmani.github.com/basket.js/
So I know it's best to have one javascript file for an entire site to limit http requests. So obviously only some javascript is required for some pages. What is the best way of only running the javascript required for the current page?
EG.
if(page=='home'){
//run javascript require for the home page
}
Maybe this isn't an issue and if targeting elements are not found on the page javascript will just fail gracefully? I would just like to know the best practice for this javascript structure.
Encapsulate your logic in functions. Then just call the function(s) you need in each page, either via "onload" or an embedded function call in the page:
<script type="text/javascript">
yourFunctionForThisPage();
</script>
Edit: Just to clarify: my answer is assuming the (implied) constraint of a single .js file. As others have pointed out, although you save on HTTP requests, this is not necessarily a good idea: the browser still has to parse all the code in the file for each page, whether used or not. To be honest it's pretty unusual to have a global site-wide js resource with everything in it. It's probably a much better idea to logically split out your js into various files, i.e libraries. These libraries could be page-based - i.e specific code for a particular page, or algorithm/task-based that you can include in whatever pages need them.
Is this feasible?
While it is best to have just a single Javascript file per page to lower the number of requests yet it may not be feasible. Especially the way that you'd like to do it.
If you're asking how to join various scripts of various pages into a single script and then running just those parts that are related to a particular page then this is something you shouldn't do. What good is it for you to have one huge file with lots of scripts (also think of maintainability) compared to a few short integrated scripts? If you keep the number of scripts low (ie. below 10) you shouldn't be to worried.
The big downside is also that browser will load the complete script file which means it will take it more time to parse them as well as consume a lot more resources to use it. I'd strongly suggest against this technique of yours even though it may look interesting...
Other possibilities
The thing is that the number of Javascript files per page is low. Depending on the server side technology you're using there are tools that can combine multiple script files into one so every page will just request a single script file which will combine all those scripts that this particular page will use. There is a bit overhead on the server to accomplish this task, but there will be just one script request.
What do you gain?
every page only has scripts that it needs
individual script files are smaller hence easier to maintain
script size per request is small
browser parsing and resource consumption is kept low
Know what you will need on the page and use a script loader like labjs.
Also, remember that your specific case might be different from what others have found, so you might want to do some tests, to verify if, for example, having 5 little files, is better (or worse) than 1 big file.
The only way to be sure is to test different options yourself and come up with a fitting solution.
I've been building a site. At some stage I noticed that IE display was a little broken and Chrome had all but rendered nothing but the body tag (empty), and FF all looked good.
After throwing my keyboard around the room and bashing my head against my mouse, I discovered the problem. I had left (don't ask how or why, must have been some lightning speed cut and paste error) an HTML comment unclosed in an inline script block.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
...
</script>
I'm guessing (not tested) the problem would have either not come up, or manifested itself in a far more noticeable way if the script was external. So anyways, I got to thinking, is there ever a time when you have a really good reason to write inline script??
No. Write Unobtrusive Javascript.
If you want your Javascript to run as early as possible, it might make sense to include inline Javascript, since it will run before any other HTTP requests have necessarily completed.
And in some cases, you're including Javascript from a 3rd party provider and you don't really have a choice. Certain ad systems, as well as Google Analytics, spring to mind.
If the script must be dynamically generated (say by a PHP or ASP.NET MVC page) would be one reason to have it inline :-)
Depends on how much JS do you plan to write. If you're writing many support routines (lots of validation checks, text processing, animation and effects) then it makes sense to have the code in a separate file. This allows code reuse and removes a lot of junk from your HTML page.
On the other hand, there is no need to put 10 lines of code, or a single function (a refresh JS comes to mind) in a separate file. It will also load slightly faster, since the browser does not need to make an additional HTTP request to download the separate JS file.
Most XSS vulnerabilities can only be exploited using inline javascript.
It's not necessarily enough of a reason, but the pages will load faster. To this end, sometimes, even when you write the script in another file, you want it to show up as inline on the client side.
I sometimes place javascript inline in pages that get partially reloaded (to bind some events to newly added form-fields for example) and / or pages that use some unique javascript that I will not use on any other page.
Having many external scripts can ultimately slow down the page as the browser must call each file separately. Combining the JavaScript into one file or into the page itself can sometimes alleviate this problem.
On the other hand, I believe the browser may cache a script file once it's been called for the first time so if you have a lot of the same code across your site, external is the way to go.
I work a good deal in something called Flex, which combines XML and ActionScript to create the final bytecode. It is ALWAYS best practice to separate the two as much as possible. That way, you can very clearly and easily separate the View (the HTML or MXML in my case) from the Controller (the script)
It also means that you do not have to worry about looking through five files for one line of code -- all of your code is in one place.
File caching is the reason to have external js and css files. Even if you only have one HTML page, this page is likely to be updated often and so will be downloaded by the browser as often. If the js (and css) are in the HTML page, that too will be downloaded often. Keeping them separate will keep the HTML file smaller and will download faster. The js and css files will have been cached so will not be continually downloaded. That is assuming these files are not updated very often.