adding on ?v=1 to urls - javascript

As seen in the code from http://html5boilerplate.com/ (ctrl+f "?v=1")
What does ?v=1 do exactly? It's tacked on to the external css and js urls.

It's just a cache-breaking method, for example:
myScript.js?v=1
I can (via cache headers) tell you to cache it forever, then when I push a new version, it's:
myScript.js?v=2
And your browser sees it as a new file it much fetch, and it can be cached forever as well, so basically you get the max cache benefit, and still force the client to re-fetch when a new version's out there. If possible, this version would be the result of a build process, automatically updated when the file changes (or at least a new build's, pushed, whatever the case may be).
As a real work example, look at the page you're viewing now:
http://sstatic.net/js/master.js?v=66ffcb6dcc55
It's a hash of the file...whenever it changes so does the hash on the end of the URL, and your browser will grab a new copy.

This is done to circumvent browser caching. The idea is that when these files change, you would increment the version number, thus forcing the file to be fetched by the browser again.

It doesn't do anything, per se.
It is just part of a URL. It follows the usual pattern for a query string, so a server side process might pay some attention to it and modify the script.
Most likely, it is just a change in the URL which will still serve up a static file from exactly the same location … but as the URL is different to v=0, it will break any caching to ensure that the browser fetches a version that was at least as new as the newest when the page was updated to use that URL for the script.

Related

Unable to reload same gif image, if used twice in a page [duplicate]

I know there are many ways to prevent image caching (such as via META tags), as well as a few nice tricks to ensure that the current version of an image is shown with every page load (such as image.jpg?x=timestamp), but is there any way to actually clear or replace an image in the browsers cache so that neither of the methods above are necessary?
As an example, lets say there are 100 images on a page and that these images are named "01.jpg", "02.jpg", "03.jpg", etc. If image "42.jpg" is replaced, is there any way to replace it in the cache so that "42.jpg" will automatically display the new image on successive page loads? I can't use the META tag method, because I need everuthing that ISN"T replaced to remain cached, and I can't use the timestamp method, because I don't want ALL of the images to be reloaded every time the page loads.
I've racked my brain and scoured the Internet for a way to do this (preferrably via javascript), but no luck. Any suggestions?
If you're writing the page dynamically, you can add the last-modified timestamp to the URL:
<img src="image.jpg?lastmod=12345678" ...
<meta> is absolutely irrelevant. In fact, you shouldn't try use it for controlling cache at all (by the time anything reads content of the document, it's already cached).
In HTTP each URL is independent. Whatever you do to the HTML document, it won't apply to images.
To control caching you could change URLs each time their content changes. If you update images from time to time, allow them to be cached forever and use a new filename (with a version, hash or a date) for the new image — it's the best solution for long-lived files.
If your image changes very often (every few minutes, or even on each request), then send Cache-control: no-cache or Cache-control: max-age=xx where xx is the number of seconds that image is "fresh".
Random URL for short-lived files is bad idea. It pollutes caches with useless files and forces useful files to be purged sooner.
If you have Apache and mod_headers or mod_expires then create .htaccess file with appropriate rules.
<Files ~ "-nocache\.jpg">
Header set Cache-control "no-cache"
</Files>
Above will make *-nocache.jpg files non-cacheable.
You could also serve images via PHP script (they have awful cachability by default ;)
Contrary to what some of the other answers have said, there IS a way for client-side javascript to replace a cached image. The trick is to create a hidden <iframe>, set its src attribute to the image URL, wait for it to load, then forcibly reload it by calling location.reload(true). That will update the cached copy of the image. You may then replace the <img> elements on your page (or reload your page) to see the updated version of the image.
(Small caveat: if updating individual <img> elements, and if there are more than one having the image that was updated, you've got to clear or remove them ALL, and then replace or reset them. If you do it one-by-one, some browsers will copy the in-memory version of the image from other tags, and the result is you might not see your updated image, despite its being in the cache).
I posted some code to do this kind of update here.
Change the image url like this, add a random string to the querystring.
"image1.jpg?" + DateTime.Now.ToString("ddMMyyyyhhmmsstt");
I'm sure most browsers respect the Last-Modified HTTP header. Send those out and request a new image. It will be cached by the browser if the Last-Modified line doesn't change.
You can append a random number to the image which is like giving it a new version. I have implemented the similar logic and it's working perfectly.
<script>
var num = Math.random();
var imgSrc= "image.png?v="+num;
$(function() {
$('#imgID').attr("src", imgSrc);
})
</script>
I found this article on how to cache bust any file
There are many ways to force a cache bust in this article but this is the way I did it for my image:
fetch('/thing/stuck/in/cache', {method:'POST', credentials:'include'});
The reason the ?x=timestamp trick is used is because that's the only way to do it on a per image basis. That or dynamically generate image names and point to an application that outputs the image.
I suggest you figure out, server side, if the image has been changed/updated, and if so then output your tag with the ?x=timestamp trick to force the new image.
No, there is no way to force a file in a browser cache to be deleted, either by the web server or by anything that you can put into the files it sends. The browser cache is owned by the browser, and controlled by the user.
Hence, you should treat each file and each URL as a precious resource that should be managed carefully.
Therefore, porneL's suggestion of versioning the image files seems to be the best long-term answer. The ETAG is used under normal circumstances, but maybe your efforts have nullified it? Try changing the ETAG, as suggested.
Change the ETAG for the image.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme
Notice that you can provide a unique username:password# combo as a prefix to the domain portion of the uri. In my experimentation, I've found that inclusion of this with a fake ID (or password I assume) results in the treatment of the resource as unique - thus breaking the caching as you desire.
Simply use a timestamp as the username and as far as I can tell the server ignores this portion of the uri as long as authentication is not turned on.
Btw - I also couldn't use the tricks above with a google map marker icon caching problem I was having where the ?param=timestamp trick worked, but caused issues with disappearing overlays. Never could figure out why this was happening, but so far so good using this method. What I'm unsure of, is if passing fake credentials will have any adverse server performance affects. If anyone knows I'd be interested to know as I'm not yet in high volume production.
Please report back your results.
Since most, if not all, answers and comments here are copies of parts the question, or close enough, I shall throw my 2 cents in.
I just want to point out that even if there is a way it is going to be difficult to implement. The logic of it traps us. From a logical stance telling the browser to replace it's cached images for each changed image on a list since a certain date is ideal BUT... When would you take the list down and how would you know if everyone has the latest version who would visit again?
So my 1st "suggestion", as the OP asked for, is this list theory.
How I see doing this is:
A.) Have a list that our dynamic and manual changed image urls can be stored.
B.) Set a dead date where the catch will be reset and the list will be truncated regardless.
C.0) Check list on site entrance vs browser via i frame which could be ran in the background with a shorter cache header set to re-cache them all against the farthest date on the list or something of that nature.
C.1) Using the Iframe or ajax/xhr request I'm thinking you could loop through each image of the list refreshing the page to show a different image and check the cache against it's own modified date. So on this image's onload use serverside to decipher if it is not the last image when it is loaded go to the next image.
C.1a) This would mean that our list may need more information per image and I think the obvious one is the possible need of some server side script to adjust the headers as required by each image to minimize the footstep of re-caching changed site images.
My 2nd "suggestion" would be to notify the user of changes and direct them to clear their cache. (Carefully, remove only images and files when possible or warn them of data removal due to the process)
P.S. This is just an educated ideation. A quick theory. If/when I make it I will post the final. Probably not here because it will require server side scripting. This is at least a suggestion not mentioned in the OP's question that he say's he already tried.
It sounds like the base of your question is how to get the old version of the image out of the cache. I've had success just making a new call and specifying in the header not to pull from cache. You're just throwing this away once you fetch it, but the browser's cache should have the updated image at that point.
var headers = new Headers()
headers.append('pragma', 'no-cache')
headers.append('cache-control', 'no-cache')
var init = {
method: 'GET',
headers: headers,
mode: 'no-cors',
cache: 'no-cache',
}
fetch(new Request('path/to.file'), init)
However, it's important to recognize that this only affects the browser this is called from. If you want a new version of the file for any browser once the image is replaced, that will need to be accomplished via server configuration.
Here is a solution using the PHP function filemtime():
<?php
$addthis = filemtime('myimf.jpg');
?>
<img src="myimg.jpg?"<?= $addthis;?> >
Use the file modified time as a parameter will cause it to read from a cached version until the file has changed. This approach is better than using e.g. a random number as caching will still work if the file has not changed.
In the event that an image is re-uploaded, is there a way to CLEAR or REPLACE the previously cached image client-side? In my example above, the goal is to make the browser forget what "42.jpg" is
You're running firefox right?
Find the Tools Menu
Select Clear Private Data
Untick all the checkboxes except make sure Cache is Checked
Press OK
:-)
In all seriousness, I've never heard of such a thing existing, and I doubt there is an API for it. I can't imagine it'd be a good idea on part of browser developers to let you go poking around in their cache, and there's no motivation that I can see for them to ever implement such a feature.
I CANNOT use the META tag method OR the timestamp method, because I want all of the images cached under normal circumstances.
Why can't you use a timestamp (or etag, which amounts to the same thing)? Remember you should be using the timestamp of the image file itself, not just Time.Now.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you don't have any other options.
If the images don't change, neither will the timestamp, so everything will be cached "under normal circumstances". If the images do change, they'll get a new timestamp (which they'll need to for caching reasons), but then that timestamp will remain valid forever until someone replaces the image again.
When changing the image filename is not an option then use a server side session variable and a javascript window.location.reload() function. As follows:
After Upload Complete:
Session("reload") = "yes"
On page_load:
If Session("reload") = "yes" Then
Session("reload") = Nothing
ClientScript.RegisterStartupScript(Me.GetType), "ReloadImages", "window.location.reload();", True)
End If
This allows the client browser to refresh only once because the session variable is reset after one occurance.
Hope this helps.
To replace cache for pictore you can store on server-side some version value and when you load picture just send this value instead timestamp. When your image will be changed change it`s version.
Try this code snippet:
var url = imgUrl? + Math.random();
This will make sure that each request is unique, so you will get the latest image always.
After much testing, the solution I have found in the following way.
1- I create a temporary folder to copy the images with the name adding time () .. (if the folder exists I delete content)
2- load the images from that temporary local folder
in this way I always make sure that the browser never caches images and works 100% correctly.
if (!is_dir(getcwd(). 'articulostemp')){
$oldmask = umask(0);mkdir(getcwd(). 'articulostemp', 0775);umask($oldmask);
}else{
rrmfiles(getcwd(). 'articulostemp');
}
foreach ($images as $image) {
$tmpname = time().'-'.$image;
$srcimage = getcwd().'articulos/'.$image;
$tmpimage = getcwd().'articulostemp/'.$tmpname;
copy($srcimage,$tmpimage);
$urlimage='articulostemp/'.$tmpname;
echo ' <img loading="lazy" src="'.$urlimage.'"/> ';
}
try below solutions,
myImg.src = "http://localhost/image.jpg?" + new Date().getTime();
Above solutions work for me :)
I usually do the same as #Greg told us, and I have a function for that:
function addMagicRefresh(url)
{
var symbol = url.indexOf('?') == -1 ? '?' : '&';
var magic = Math.random()*999999;
return url + symbol + 'magic=' + magic;
}
This will work since your server accepts it and you don't use the "magic" parameter any other way.
I hope it helps.
I have tried something ridiculously simple:
Go to FTP folder of the website and rename the IMG folder to IMG2. Refresh your website and you will see the images will be missing. Then rename the folder IMG2 back to IMG and it's done, at least it worked for me in Safari.

Force browser to reload all cache after site update

Is there a way to force the clients of a webpage to reload the cache (i.e. images, javascript, etc) after a server has been pushed an update to the code base? We get a lot of help desk calls asking why certain functionality no longer works. A simple hard refresh fixes the problems as it downloads the newly updated javascript file.
For specifics we are using Glassfish 3.x. and JSF 2.1.x. This would apply to more than just JSF of course.
To describe what behavior I hope is possible:
Website A has two images and two javascript files. A user visits the site and the 4 files get cached. As far as I'm concerned, no need to "re-download" said files unless user specifically forces a "hard" refresh or clears their cache. Once a site is pushed an update to one of the files, the server could have some sort of metadata in the header informing the client of said update. If the client chooses, the new files would be downloaded.
What I don't want to do is put meta-tag in the header of a page to force nothing from ever being cached...I just want something that tells the client an update has occurred and it should get the latest once something has been updated. I suppose this would just be some sort of versioning on the client side.
Thanks for your time!
The correct way to handle this is with changing the URL convention for your resources. For example, we have it as:
/resources/js/fileName.js
To get the browser to still cache the file, but do it the proper way with versioning, is by adding something to the URL. Adding a value to the querystring doesn't allow caching, so the place to put it is after /resources/.
A reference for querystring caching: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html#sec13.9
So for example, your URLs would look like:
/resources/1234/js/fileName.js
So what you could do is use the project's version number (or some value in a properties/config file that you manually change when you want cached files to be reloaded) since this number should change only when the project is modified. So your URL could look like:
/resources/cacheholder${project.version}/js/fileName.js
That should be easy enough.
The problem now is with mapping the URL, since that value in the middle is dynamic. The way we overcame that is with a URL rewriting module that allowed us to filter URLs before they got to our application. The rewrite watched for URLs that looked like:
/resources/cacheholder______/whatever
And removed the cacheholder_______/ part. After the rewrite, it looked like a normal request, and the server would respond with the correct file, without any other specific mapping/logic...the point is that the browser thought it was a new file (even though it really wasn't), so it requested it, and the server figures it out and serves the correct file (even though it's a "weird" URL).
Of course, another option is to add this dynamic string to the filename itself, and then use the rewrite tool to remove it. Either way, the same thing is done - targeting a string of text during rewrite, and removing it. This allows you to fool the browser, but not the server :)
UPDATE:
An alternative that I really like is to set the filename based on the contents, and cache that. For example, that could be done with a hash. Of course, this type of thing isn't something you'd manually do and save to your project (hopefully); it's something your application/framework should handle. For example, in Grails, there's a plugin that "hashes and caches" resources, so that the following occurs:
Every resource is checked
A new file (or mapping to this file) is created, with a name that is the hash of its contents
When adding <script>/<link> tags to your page, the hashed name is used
When the hash-named file is requested, it serves the original resource
The hash-named file is cached "forever"
What's cool about this setup is that you don't have to worry about caching correctly - just set the files to cache forever, and the hashing should take care of files/mappings being available based on content. It also provides the ability for rollbacks/undos to already be cached and loaded quickly.
i use a no-cache parameter for this situations...
a have a string constant value like (from config file)
$no_cache = "v11";
and in pages, i use assets like
<img src="a.jpg?nc=$no_cache">
and when i update my code, just change the $no_cache value, and it works like a charm.

getting related js files: What is the point of adding ?t=B48E5AB

I'm using CKEditor which is a multi-file library so the main js file calls other js and css files. I'm noticing that after the main file is called, additional files have a ?t=CODE added to them, so something like this, but the actual files don't have that extra ?t=B49E5BQ at the end.
http://site.com/ckeditor/config.js?t=B49E5BQ
http://site.com/ckeditor/extra.js?t=B49E5BQ
What's the point of this
P.S. Please feel free to add additional tags, because I'm not sure about this one.
This sort of trailing data is sometimes put into URLs for resources files like scripts/stylesheets so as to prevent caching of resources across re-deployments.
Whenever you change a resource, you change the code in HTML files/templates which require that resource, so that clients re-request the resource from the server the next time they load the page.
I would guess that the URL parameter is added to bypass any caching mechanisms. When a client sees the same URL with a different query parameter, that usually means the client can't use the cached version of the resource (in this case a JS file) and go to the server to fetch the latest version.
In HTTP, if a URL is the same in every way except for the URL parameters, a client can not assume that those files/resources are the same resulting object.
Which means:
http://site.com/ckeditor/config.js?t=B49E5BQ
is not the same as:
http://site.com/ckeditor/config.js?t=1234
It must be there to prevent caching.
I do this occasionally for images and script files. In my case, it's a meaningless argument (usually datetime) that just forces the browser to fetch a new copy every time.
If the parameter keeps changing, those files won't be cached on the client side.
Often this is easier than say, changing the name of the file to include a version number (jquery-1.6.2.js works nicely, but do you want to rename config.js to config-1.0.js, -2.0, etc. every time you make a change?
Like all the other answers, this simply forces the browser to grab the latest version when the querystring (?t=B49E5BQ) is changed. In our case, we simply add the date (?06022011).

What is a "?" for in the src attribute of a html script tag?

If this has been asked before, I apologize but this is kinda of a hard question to search for. This is the first time I have come across this in all my years of web development, so I'm pretty curious.
I am editing some HTML files for a website, and I have noticed that in the src attribute of the script tags that the previous author appended a question mark followed by data.
Ex: <script src="./js/somefile.js?version=3.2"></script>
I know that this is used in some languages for value passing in GET request, such as PHP, but as I far as I ever knew, this wasn't done in javascript - at least in calling a javascript file. Does anyone know what this does, if anything?
EDIT: Wow, a lot of responses. Thanks one and all. And since a lot of people are saying similar things, I will post an global update instead of commenting everyone.
In this case the javascript files are static, hence my curiosity. I have also opened them up and did not see anything attempt to access variables on file load. I've never thought about caching or plain version control, both which seam more likely in this circumstance.
I believe what the author was doing was ensuring that if he creates version 3.3 of his script he can change the version= in the url of the script to ensure that users download the new file instead of running off of the old script cached in their browser.
So in this case it is part of the caching strategy.
My guess is it's so if he publishes a new version of the JavaScript file, he can bump the version in the HTML documents. This will not do anything server-side when requested, but it causes the browser to treat it as a different file, effectively forcing the browser to re-fetch the script and bypass the local cache of the file.
This way, you can set a really high cache time (like a week or a month!) but not sacrifice the ability to update scripts frequently if necessary.
What you have to remember is that this ./js/somefile.js?version=3.2 doesn't have to be a physical file. It can be a page which creates the file on the fly. So you could have it where the request says, "Hey give me version 3 of this js file," and the server side code creates it and writes it to the output stream.
The other option is to force the browser to not cache the file and pull down the new one when it makes the request. Since the URI changed, it will think the file is completely new.
A (well-configured) web server will send static files like JavaScript source code once and tell the web browser to cache that file locally for a certain period of time (could be a day, a week, a month, or longer). When the browser sees another request for that same file, it will just use that version instead of getting new code from the server.
If the URL changes -- for example by adding a query string -- then the browser suspects that its cached version is no good and gets a new one. As such, the ? helps developers say "Oops, I changed this file, make sure the browser gets a new copy."
In this case it's probably being used to ensure the source file isn't cached between versions.
Of course, it could also be used server side to generate the javascript file, without knowing what you have on the other end of the request, it's difficult to be definitive.
BTW, the ?... portion of the url is called the query string.
this is used to guarantee that the browser downloads a new version of the script when available. The version number in the url is incremented each time a new version is deployed so that the browser see it as a different file.
Just because the file extension is .js doesn't mean that the target is an actual .js file. They could set up their web server to pass the requested URL to a script (or literally have a script named somefile.js) and have that interpret the filename and version.
The query string has nothing to do with the javascript. Some server side code is hosting up a different version depending on that querystring it appears.
You should never assume anything about paths in a URL. The extension on a path in a URL doesn't really tell you anything. URLs can be completely dynamic and served by some server side code or can rewritten in web servers dynamically.
Now it is common to add a querystring to urls when loading javascript files to prevent client side caching. If the page updates and references a new version of the script then the page can bust through and cause the client to refresh it's script.

Why pass parameters to CSS and JavaScript link files like src="../cnt.js?ver=4.0"?

When I saw many sites' source code, parameters were passed to the linking file (CSS/JavaScript).
In the Stack Overflow source, I got
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://sstatic.net/js/master.js?v=55c7eccb8e19"></script>
Why is master.js?v=55c7eccb8e19 used?
I am sure that JavaScript/CSS files can't get the parameters.
What is the reason?
It is usually done to prevent caching.
Let's say you deploy version 2 of your new application and you want to cause the clients to refresh their CSS, you could add this extra parameter to indicate that it should re-request it from the server. Of course there are other approaches as well, but this is pretty simple.
As the others have said, it's probably an attempt to control caching, although I think it's best to do so by changing the actual resource name (foo.v2.js, not foo.js?v=2) rather than a version in the query string. (That doesn't mean you have to rename files, there are better ways of mapping that URL to the underlying file.) This article, though four years old and therefore ancient in the web world, is still a quite useful discussion. In it, the author claims that you don't want to use query strings for versions because:
...According the letter of the HTTP caching specification, user agents should never cache URLs with query strings. While Internet Explorer and Firefox ignore this, Opera and Safari don’t...
That statement may not be quite correct, because what the spec actually says is
...since some applications have traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a "?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URIs as fresh unless the server provides an explicit expiration time...
(That emphasis at the end is mine.) So using a version in the query string may be fine as long as you're also including explicit caching headers. Provided browsers implement the above correctly. And proxies do. You see why I think you're better off with versions in the actual resource locator, rather than query parameters (which [again] doesn't mean you have to constantly rename files; see the article linked above for more). You know browsers, proxies, etc. along the way are going to fetch the updated resource if you change its name, which means you can give the previous "name" a never-ending cache time to maximize the benefit of intermediate caches.
Regarding:
I am sure that Js/CSS files can't get the parameters.
Just because the result coming back is a JavaScript or CSS resource, it doesn't mean that it's a literal file on the server's file system. The server could well be doing processing based on the query string parameters and generating a customized JavaScript or CSS response. There's no reason I can't configure my server to route all .js files to (say) a PHP handler that looks at the query string and returns something customized to match the fields given. Thus, foo.js?v=2 may well be different from foo.js?v=1 if I've set up my server to do so.
That's to avoid the browser from caching the file. The appending version name has no effect on the JavaScript file, but to the browser's caching engine it looks like a unique file now.
For example, if you had scripts.js and the browser visits the page, they download and cache (store) that file to make the next page visit faster. However, if you make a change the browser may not recognize it until the cache has expired. However, scripts.js?v2 now makes the browser force a re-fetch because the "name's changed" (even though it hasn't, just the contents have).
A server-side script generating the CSS or JavaScript code could make use of them, but it is probably just being used to change the URI when the the content of the file changes so that old, cached versions won't cause problems.
<script type="text/javascript">
// front end cache bust
var cacheBust = ['js/StrUtil.js', 'js/protos.common.js', 'js/conf.js', 'bootstrap_ECP/js/init.js'];
for (i=0;i<cacheBust.length;i++){
var el = document.createElement('script');
el.src = cacheBust[i]+"?v=" + Math.random();
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(el);
}
</script>
This is to force the browser to re-cache the .js file if there has been any update.
You see, when you update your JS on a site, some browsers may have cached the old version (to improve performace). Sicne you want them to use your new one, you can append something in the query-field of the name, and voíla! The browser re-fetches the file!
This applies to all files sent from the server btw.
Since javascript and css files are cached by the client browser, so we append some numeric values against their names in order to provide the non-cached version of the file
"I am sure that JavaScript /CSS files can't get the parameters"
function getQueryParams(qs) {
qs = qs.split("+").join(" ");
var params = {},
tokens, re = /[?&]?([^=]+)=([^&]*)/g;
while (tokens = re.exec(qs)) {
params[decodeURIComponent(tokens[1])] = decodeURIComponent(tokens[2]);
}
return params;
}
This is referred to as Cache Busting.
The browser will cache the file, including the querystring. Next time the querystring is updated the browser will be forced to download the new version of the file.
There are various types of cache-busting, for example:
Static
Date/Time
Software Version
Hashed-Content
I've wrote an article on cache busting previously which you may find useful:
http://curtistimson.co.uk/front-end-dev/what-is-cache-busting/

Categories

Resources