I think this may be a browser dependent question- Suppose I have 10 Javascript files and several HTML pages. Suppose HTML pageA needs only JS1.js and JS3.js, similarly HTML pageB needs JS4.js and JS1.js. I want to know what would be effect of including all the 10 javascript files in all HTML pages? Will it directly relate to the memory consumption by the browser?
I am facing this problem particularly with YUI javascript library. There are several components like datatable, event, container, calendar, dom-event etc., The order in which they are included also seems to matter a lot- For example the dom-event js should be included before the rest for it to work. So to avoid all this confusion, I thought of including all these js files in a header file that gets included in all HTML pages.
The thing that I am worried about is the memory bloat and performance problems that it may cause. Please provide your suggestions on the same..
Thanks,
-Keshav
Any script you load into your page, even once downloaded and cached must still be parsed before the rest of the page can load. So in that sense there is a memory penalty, and there's still a potential for something in the script to significantly delay rendering.
However, in the case of a conscientiously designed library such as YUI I would expect the parsing time to be minimised.
If you can load all your scripts in at the end of the page, that can vastly improve performance as the entire page can render before being blocked by javascript execution, and your site will feel a lot snappier.
I would suggest investigating the Firebug Net panel and the YSlow extension to get specific performance stats for your website.
External scripts delay the display of the following html until they have loaded and executed. The impact is much less after the first page load, since they're already cached, though browsers will occasionally check for new versions, which still carries a delay. I try to limit the number of scripts and move the script tags to the bottom of the page when possible. Users won't notice the script loading delay if the page has already fully displayed.
if a given script does nothing, it will not affect the performance.
Obviously the first page will load slowly, but the rest will not need to load all the scripts because they will be cached. So the next pages will load faster
Tips:
1) Load the script at the bottom of the page (just before the closing BODY tag).
2) Use a non-blocking way of loading the scripts. This is the one I'm using .
<script type="text/javascript">
function AttachScript(src) {
var script = document.createElement("script");
script.type = "text/javascript";
document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChild(script);
script.src = src;
}
AttachScript("/js/jquery.min.js");
AttachScript("/js/ndr.js");
AttachScript("/js/shadowbox.js");
AttachScript("/js/libraries/sizzle/sizzle.js");
AttachScript("/js/languages/shadowbox-es.js");
AttachScript("/js/players/shadowbox-img.js");
AttachScript("/js/adapters/shadowbox-jquery.js");
Can't find the source web page though :-(
Memory Consumption:
Assuming the scripts are well written then memory consumption and performance issues should be nominal. Your biggest problem with including all scripts at once will be the latency in the user experience first time through, or if you make changes, because they will have to download all of them in one hit. I think you should only include the scripts you need per page, not all scripts at once.
You can assess the impact yourself using simple tools like task manager/processes in Windows to monitor memory/processor useage, or plugs ins like Firebug for FireFox.
You can also look into something called minification to help make your script files as small as possible.
Dependencies:
The order in which you include the scripts is important as some scripts may depend on functionality in other scripts. So if the code in one script attempts to run and it requires code in another script that has not been downloaded then it will fail. My advice would be to actually understand those dependancies in your scripts files rather than just downloading everything at once because it seems easier.
Use the YUI Configurator to help determine the required file includes and order, as well as how to use the Yahoo! CDN combo service to combine all YUI files into a single script tag.
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/hosting/
External assets to the HTML page are typically cached by the browser. External assets are anything requested from the HTML such as images, CSS, JavaScript, and anything else. So if you load all 10 script files up front you are forcing a one time massive download hit to your user. After this one time the user does not need to download the scripts again unless the modify timestamp on the files change.
Your page will only use what it requires. If a particular page requests js4.js and js5.js then all the functions in those files will be loaded into the interpreter in the order in which they are first requested from the HTML and second by the order in which they are specified in each of those files. If there are any namespace conflicts what ever is loaded into the interpreter last wins. The interpreter will clear out the functions once the page is unloaded from the browser.
For efficiency I would suggest using a server-side inclusion process to read each of the js files and include the contents of each file into a new single js file. This will reduce the number of HTTP requests to the server and save your users an extreme amount of bandwidth resources with regard to HTTP headers and GET requests. Also, put the request of this new one script file directly prior to the closing body tag of your HTML. Downloading of scripts block parallel downloads in IE, so you want to load scripts at the lowest possible point in the page.
Scriptaculous implements a nice way to handle js dependencies. Guess you could check it out and "re-implement" it. ;D
As for memory bloat and performance issues... as long as your JS doesn't leak a lot (YUI probably doesn't) memory won't be much of a problem, although it will make your pages load slower, especially if loaded in the header.
You can read on caching methods using PHP to pass on several javascript files as one big JS file which includes everything you need. For additional performance gains, you can make the browser cache the file locally in addition to sending it gzipped (if the browser has support for the encoding using something like ob_start("ob_gzhandler");). By using gzip encoding, you can severely reduce the filesize of the main JS file you're sending which includes all your JS code (since plain text compresses so well). I recently had to do this on my own website and it's worked like a charm for both JS and CSS files.
http://www.ejeliot.com/blog/72
Note that by following the instructions on that tutorial, your JS file will only be sent once and the browser on the client's machine will keep a local copy stored which will also improve performance of every visit thereafter.
Also, consider googling "Minify" which should be hosted on Google Code.
Related
I have a few snippets of javascript scattered about my pages - many are contained in my own .js files, however some of the stuff that I've found online sits directly on the page.
I'm not too familiar with how javascript interacts with a page - is there a difference between adding the script inline or adding a reference to the external file?
There is little difference in using one or the other way. The real difference comes from the advantages/disadvantages that each one has.
Inline scripts
Are loaded in the same page so is not necessary to trigger another request.
Are executed immediately.
The async and defer attributes have no effect
Can be helpful when you are using a server-side dynamic rendering.
External scripts
Gives better separation of concerns and maintainability.
The async and defer attributes have effect so if this attributes are present the script will change the default behavior. This is not possible with inline scripts.
Once a external script is downloaded the browser store it in the cache so if another page reference it no additional download is required.
Can be used to load client code on demand and reduce overall download time and size.
External script files
Much easier to analyse so you can debug more efficiently and read it. This makes life much easier for us as programmers
Download time is reduced as the external file is cached so it can be downloaded with the website
Instead of writing the same script numerous times, an external file can be called and executed anywhere in the code
External files decrease page rendering speed as the browser has to stop parsing and download the external file. This adds a network round trip which will slow everything down. Also because external files are cached it makes it tough to delete them if the have been updated
Inline code
Inline code reduces the number of HTTP requests making improving the performance of the webpage. This because the code is loaded in the same page so a request is not needed
Inline script is executed immediately
Although inline code is much harder to read and analyse as it just looks like a lump of code chucked together. It is hard work having to find the problem when debugging, making life as a programmer tough
Hope this helps you understand a bit more :)
Looking at the <script> tag documentation, you can see that you can use the async and defer attributes only with external scripts, which might have an effect on scripts that do not use event listeners as entry points.
Other than that, inlining renders a browser unable to cache it on its own, so if you use the same script on different pages, the browser cache cannot kick in. So it might have an effect on performance and/or bandwidth usage.
And, of course, splitting code up into files is one way of organizing it.
Generally there is no difference as indicated in the comments. But, if the snippet is embedded in the middle of the HTML in the page and it is not a function, it is executed immediately. Such script segments may have a difference in behavior when moved to a separate JS file when enough care is not taken.
Usually, the javascripts of the main page is heavier than other pages. For example, we put jQuery slideshow in the main page which is not used in other pages. Is it necessary to create different s for the main and individual pages to include only in-action javacript files?
Or all javascript files read on the first page will be cached for browsing the website, and in loading an indivitual page, browser will not read the javascript of slideshow?
Another form of this question is: if I put slideshow on each individual page, will the browser load the slideshow javascript file each time, or it will read from its cache (saved on the visitor's computer)?
like florian h says most browsers will cache the content (unless development tools are being used).
if you only use the slideshow javascript on one page I would recommend putting it in a separate file. There is a downside to this, most often the http requests take the longest time with loading a file.
So if you for example have one javascript file of 1mb and you need all the javascript on most pages its better then using 4 smaller files of 250kb each. Because your browser needs to do 4 separate requests.
Ofcourse this maybe is a difference of a couple of milliseconds of performance profit, so you might want to choose to do it in separate files anyway to increase maintainability.
Allmost all browsers will cache the javascript files, so you shouldn't create different versions for sub pages.
But if you have very large JS files it's of course reasonable to only include those that you actually need.
All files are cached in the browser based on the path to the file.
If you include an javascript from one page, the file will be cached and it won't be downloaded again when you surf other pages.
Unless you want it to ;)
Yes, js files will be cached (if not said otherwise).
But, js files must be processed and may include initialization logic that you do not need. Also every script tag that loads external js will block any other "http thread", meaning images, css files... will stop loading untill js file is loaded, otherwise you will have several parallel (at same time) resources loading.
I would have different scripts for different pages.
For your case it might be an issue and it might not be. You should make few test for you case and see whether do you have performance issues. If not than convenience of not having different scripts for different pages might be better.
I know that best practice for including javascript is having all code in a separate .js file and allowing browsers to cache that file.
But when we begin to use many jquery plugins which have their own .js, and our functions depend on them, wouldn't it be better to load dynamically only the js function and the required .js for the current page?
Wouldn't that be faster, in a page, if I only need one function to load dynamically embedding it in html with the script tag instead of loading the whole js with the js plugins?
In other words, aren't there any cases in which there are better practices than keeping our whole javascript code in a separate .js?
It would seem at first glance that this would be a good idea, but in fact it would actually make matters worse. For example, if one page needs plugins 1, 2 and 3, then a file would be build server side with those plugins in it. Now, the browser goes to another page that needs plugins 2 and 4. This would cause another file to be built, this new file would be different from the first one, but it would also contain the code for plugin 2 so the same code ends up getting downloaded twice, bypassing the version that the browser already has.
You are best off leaving the caching to the browser, rather than trying to second-guess it. However, there are options to improve things.
Top of the list is using a CDN. If the plugins you are using are fairly popular ones, then the chances are that they are being hosted with a CDN. If you link to the CDN-hosted plugins, then any visitors who are hitting your site for the first time and who have also happened to have hit another site that's also using the same plugins from the same CDN, the plugins will already be cached.
There are, of course, other things you can to to speed your javascript up. Best practice includes placing all your script include tags as close to the bottom of the document as possible, so as to not hold up page rendering. You should also look into lazy initialization. This involves, for any stuff that needs significant setup to work, attaching a minimalist event handler that when triggered removes itself and sets up the real event handler.
One problem with having separate js files is that will cause more HTTP requests.
Yahoo have a good best practices guide on speeding up your site: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html
I believe Google's closure library has something for combining javascript files and dependencies, but I havn't looked to much into it yet. So don't quote me on it: http://code.google.com/closure/library/docs/calcdeps.html
Also there is a tool called jingo http://code.google.com/p/jingo/ but again, I havn't used it yet.
I keep separate files for each plug-in and page during development, but during production I merge-and-minify all my JavaScript files into a single JS file loaded uniformly throughout the site. My main layout file in my web framework (Sinatra) uses the deployment mode to automatically either generate script tags for all JS files (in order, based on a manifest file) or perform the minification and include a single querystring-timestamped script inclusion.
Every page is given a body tag with a unique id, e.g. <body id="contact">.
For those scripts that need to be specific to a particular page, I either modify the selectors to be prefixed by the body:
$('body#contact form#contact').submit(...);
or (more typically) I have the onload handlers for that page bail early:
jQuery(function($){
if (!$('body#contact').length) return;
// Do things specific to the contact page here.
});
Yes, including code (or even a plug-in) that may only be needed by one page of the site is inefficient if the user never visits that page. On the other hand, after the initial load the entire site's JS is ready to roll from the cache.
The network latency is the main problem.You can get a very responsive page if you reduce the http calls to one.
It means all the JS, CSS are bundled into the HTML page.And if your can forget IE6/7 you can put the images as data:image/png;base64
When we release a new version of our web app, a shell script minify and bundle everything into a single html page.
Then there is a second call for the data, and we render all the HTML client-side using a JS template library: PURE
Ensure the page is cached and gzipped. There is probably a limit in size to consider.We try to stay under 400kb unzipped, and load secondary resources later when needed.
You can also try a service like http://www.blaze.io. It automatically peforms most front end optimization tactics and also couples in a CDN.
There currently in private beta but its worth submitting your website to.
I would recommend you join common bits of functionality into individual javascript module files and load them only in the pages they are being used using RequireJS / head.js or a similar dependency management tool.
An example where you are using lighbox popups, contact forms, tracking, and image sliders in different parts of the website would be to separate these into 4 modules and load them only where needed. That way you optimize caching and make sure your site has no unnecessary flab.
As a general rule its always best to have less files than more, its also important to work on the timing of each JS file, as some are needed BEFORE the page completes loading and some AFTER (ie, when user clicks something)
See a lot more tips in the article: 25 Techniques for Javascript Performance Optimization.
Including a section on managing Javascript file dependencies.
Cheers, hope this is useful.
I am at the point where I have a bunch of javascript files and I'm not sure how to approach caching them all in one file. I have come across using:
javascript_include_tag ... :cache => true
but I have a number of javascript files that are particular to a specific page...does it make sense to include all of them in my layout even though some pages do not need a lot of the javascript in there? Some of my pages do not require any javascript at all, is a browser going to download this concatenated js for every page?
Some people will dump all their JavaScript into one file, but I don't think that makes a lot of sense unless the routines are used in every page.
Think about how your scripts are used. Put ones that are used most often in the most pages in one file. Then, if there are scripts used occasionally, put them in separate files. Then use multiple <script> statements in your HTML file to pull in the ones you need.
If a user's browser is set normally, it will download the scripts once then reference them from its local cache. The first time they request the page it'll take a bit longer to retrieve everything because it has to populate the cache, but from then it'll be fast(er). The browser will use the cached version for all references to the script.
The :cache => true flag can help if you have a bajillion scripts, because they could be compressed during the first download of the file but I don't think it speeds up loading afterwards when the browser is pulling them from its cache.
Caching multiple javascripts into one talks about it.
n include tags = n get request on the server. This does not perform well and the web page gets slower.
I would not mind minifying everything into one file. Its a one time download anyways and then it gets cached in the browser.
Each situation is different so analyze yours using Yslow and see if minifying into one file is going to help or not. Also look at https://github.com/thumblemonks/smurf for minifying your js & css in to 2 files.
A simple question that I'm not sure if it has a short answer!
Description
I have a files of JavaScript that to be loaded in a website here are some notes about them:
They are all comes from the same domain (no cross domain loading needed)
They are identical around the website.
There are several files, like jQuery, and 5 other plugins plus my own application script that is based on them.
Their size all compressed = 224KB, ( I combine all the files in one file then I compress them at once using YUI Compressor 2
Problem
I've heard that 224KB is not ideal to be in one file! and it should be split into several files with maximum of 44KB each .. I can't recall when I've heard this and I'm not sure if it's effective to split it into more files, but It's true that 224KB takes long time to load for the first time, consider that the website is loaded with images and css of course.
I've minimized the need for the early loading of JavaScript file and put it on the bottom, so far this is a good progress but I need to load it assynchounosly with the HTML to gain time Source and the decission to make is:
Yes or No?
Keep it in one compressed big file? or to split them into many compressed file and loaded a asynchronously (I'm aware of handling the dependency related problems)?
It depends on what the site is and how important first load time is for it.
Regardless of that though, I'd probably load JQuery and stuff like that from a public CDN. One big benefit is that it might already be cached even if they have never been to your site.
http://encosia.com/2008/12/10/3-reasons-why-you-should-let-google-host-jquery-for-you/
The Cappuccino team is a big proponent of one file -- they make a javascript framework. Apps made with their tool are expected to have some load time.
http://cappuccino.org/discuss/2009/11/11/just-one-file-with-cappuccino-0-8/
Another benefit of loading JQuery and related from a public CDN would the increased requests by destination. I believe the client is restricted to 2 requests per domain, so by loading jquery from google, and a plugin from jquery, and your custom app code from your own domain, the browser can execute these concurrently rather than waiting for the first two and then issuing a third request.
I guess this adds another performance improvement over one large file as well. Even if you just split that 1 file into 2, it could be retrieved with 2 concurrent requests from the browser potentially improving load time.
Here's what we did to make our web app fast.
The main JS and CSS files are compressed and put inline with the HTML markup.
The white spaces of the HTML are removed and the images are converted to data:image/png by a shell script.
The size is ~400kb but cached and gzipped.
The mobile version of the web app is the same but at ~250kb.
It means the whole app is ready to run, like an executable, in a single http call.
Then a second http call get the data(JSON), and we use PURE to render it in HTML using the existing markups in the page as templates.
The app is divided in modules, only the common modules are preloaded this way.The others are coming when requested by the user.
There is no exact answer to this question. It pretty much depends on how and when you are making use of those files.
Typically, you only want to download JS files on pageload which are universally required by the web app. Module specific or page specific JS files shouldn't be compressed in the main JS download and would ideally be loaded on demand.
Also, this question is valid only if you are concerned about user experience for first time users. The JS files would be cached anyways for every other visit.