Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20145
| From | Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| Subject | Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? |
| Date | 2013-06-04 22:44 +0200 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <koljit$7um$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <7dc473f5-c0e8-415b-92e1-f6201220fe9d@j8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <kojb4i$s6f$1@news.albasani.net> <b14rcqFnmifU1@mid.individual.net> <kokvr4$5ve$1@dont-email.me> <b16r2sF8v5oU1@mid.individual.net> |
On 2013-06-04 20:47, Mel Smith wrote: > Martin said: >> I am missing someting, here. How do you >> zip JavaScript code and still get it to run >> in the browser? > > Hi Martin: > > In your Apache Server configuration file (httpd.conf), ensure the > following are set: [...] Something I've never understood about mod_deflate: why is there no way to cache deflated static files? If you have a large script that you want mod_deflate to compress before sending, it will do so for every single fresh request. Granted, gzipping a script file is not likely to make a major impact on a server, but it's still a waste of resources. Other HTTP servers do have a cache like that (for example, mod_compress in Lighttpd). It's not a deal breaker; I still use mod_deflate. I just dislike the needless waste of cycles when it would be so simple to add a cache (memory or disk based). - stefan
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-03 13:59 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-06-03 13:39 -0700
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-03 14:46 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 02:07 +0200
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-03 18:40 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-03 20:38 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2013-06-04 09:11 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-04 12:47 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 22:44 +0200
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-04 16:02 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2013-06-04 20:24 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-06-05 14:50 +0200
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2013-06-05 22:38 -0600
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2013-06-05 08:51 -0400
OT: Accept-Encoding (was: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ?) Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-06-05 15:23 +0200
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? RobG <rgqld@iinet.net.au> - 2013-06-05 18:12 -0700
Re: 'pushing' vs direct array assignment ? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-06 08:54 -0600
csiph-web