currently the project i am working on is using cache:1.1.1 plugin with grails 2.2.4. but for some reason its not working and in browser under the network tab i get status 200 instead of 304 every time i reload the page.
I have tried different plugin versions but in vain.
i don't want any special functions to be cached. I just need my assets, so that the loading time speeds up.
compile ":cache:1.1.1",
I have read about the ehcache somewhere but don't know whether it'll work or not.
The cache plugin doesn't have anything to do with assets - for that you should look at the asset-pipeline plugin and its addon plugins.
The cache plugin caches method call results (typically service methods) and GSP page fragments, and should be used when the method will return the same result given the same inputs (or the GSP section will generate the same output) and is time-consuming or resource-intensive to compute, so caching those values and not recomputing the values every time can save a lot of server load. It doesn't do anything by default; you need to add annotations to methods that should be cached, and wrap the sections of GSPs that should be cached in a taglib call. See the documentation for more info.
Related
We have an ASP MVC 5 applications. We use bundles with optimization enabled by default. But we have heard several times from users, that they get errors, that we think are caused by old versions of user scripts. Their browsers somehow take scripts from cache, despite the fact, that we have edited that script files and bundles should be updated. The worst part of the problem is that we can't imitate or recreate this problem. We don't know how. We already have tried to make test-changes to scripts like adding some "console.log('test')" lines in order to see, if the browser takes the cached version, but everything was ok, the hash in the end of <script src="....?v='hash'"> changed and the browser took the newest version from first time. I should mention, that our site is a single page application. Don't know, maybe its somehow related with the problem.
Have you faced this kind of problem?
There's not enough information here to give a definitive answer. The bundler detects changes in files and will regenerate the bundle along with the link to that bundle, which will include an updated query string param. Since the query string is part of the URI, it's considered a totally different resource at this point, and the browser should fetch it again, because there is technically no cache available. The only logical reason this would not occur is if the HTML with the link to the bundle is not being updated. This can happen if you're using OutputCache or otherwise caching the HTML document. It can also happen if the client's browser is aggressively caching the HTML document. Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about that, as the client browser ultimately has control over what is or is not cached and for how long.
That said, given that this is a single page app, it's very possible that it's also including a cache manifest. This manifest will very often include the HTML file itself, and the browser will not refetch any file in the manifest unless the manifest itself is updated.
For a long time I've been updating ASP.NET pages on the server and never find the correct way to make changes visible on files like CSS and images.
I know if a append something in the URL the browser will think the file is another one:
<img src="/images/myLogo.png?v=1"/>
or perhaps changing its name:
<img src="/images/myLogo.v1.png"/>
Unfortunately it does not look the correct way. In a case were I'm using App_Themes the files in this folder are automatically injected in the page in a way I can't easily change the URL.
So my question is:
When I'm publishing de ASP.NET Application on the server what is the correct way to signal to IIS (and it notify browser after that) that a file was changed? It is not automatic? Should I change some configuration in IIS or perhaps make some "decoration" in the code?
I've already tried many questions here in SO like "ASP.NET - Invalidate browser cache", "How to refresh the browser cache of an image?", "Handle cached images? How to get the browser to show the new version?", and even "What is an elegant way to force browsers to reload cached CSS/JS files?" but none of them actually take another aproach else in a way you must handle it manually in the code instead of IIS or ASP.NET configuration.
The closer I could find is "Asking browsers to cache our images (ASP.NET/IIS)" where they set expiration but not based on the fact the files were update. Instead they used days or hour to cache those file so they would updated even when no changes were made.
I'm want to know if IIS or ASP.NET offers something related to this, automatically send to the browser that the files was changed. Is it possible/built in?
The options you have to update the browser side, cached item are:
Change the file name
Add url parameter
Place it on cache for a limited time (eg for couple of hours)
Compare the date-time of creation.
Signaling with eTag.
With the three two you avoiding one server call for each item, but the third option load it again after some time.
With the others you have to make one call to the server to see if needs to be load it again.
So you can not have all here, there is not correct way, and you need to chose what is the best for you, and what you can do. The faster from client perspective is the (1) and (2) options.
The direct answer to your question is to use eTag, or date-time compare of the file creation, but you loose that way, a call to the server, you only win the size of what is travel back.
Some more links:
http eTag
How do I support ETags in ASP.NET MVC?
Configuring ETags with Http module in asp.net
How to control web page caching, across all browsers?
Jquery getScript caching
and you can find even more.
I'm working on a .Net/ASP project and my responsibility is to work on the design part of the application only (mostly changing css, js, images, and cshtml files)
I'm working directly on the server, so my app is not running in visual studio or locally or any environment where I can rebuild the app.
That being said, any changes I make to the website takes about 45 minutes before it shows up (I do clear browser cache every time as well).
Is there any way I can manually clear the application cache or rebuild it on the server so my changes start showing immediately?
This is something I added to the we.config but still not helping:
<caching>
<outputCacheSettings enableOutputCache="false"/>
</caching>
Well, if I'm not mistaken the cache you're targetting is not about this kind of resources as they're simply not processed by .NET. This outputcache is rather about the final HTML rendered. So I don't think that's where you should be looking. But there may be some kind of proxy somewhere caching those resources aswell.
To avoid client/server caching problems with CSS and javascript, I usually add a time ticker to every request avoiding them to be cached client-side. It should also override any "server caching" of those resources, and I would advise testing it manually before putting an automatic solution in place. so, if you're including js file that way :
<script src="/mypath/myscript.js"></script>
you could just do that :
<script src="/mypath/myscript.js?123></script>
and see if you get the changes in the file immediately now. If yes, just automate the addition of that number (ideally a timestamp so it's always different on each request) to every javascript/css inclusion you make...
I do not really understand how Google Code handles file versioning.
I am building a jQuery plugin that anyone can access. Like so:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://jquery-old-browser-warning.googlecode.com/files/jquery.browser-warning.js"></script>
This script accesses other files on the same project (via ajax).
The problem is, that when I upload a new file, it just seems like there aren't any changed to it. Google recommends that new files should have new names.
But then I would have to change the filenames that the script loads.
But then I would have to change the script file as well, and that would break everybodys implementation (with the script-tag above)
Is there a way to force a file to change when uploading with the same filename?
PS: If I go directly to the project page's file list. Then I do get the file with the updated content. But as I said, not when getting it through ajax.
The cheapest trick in the book to prevent caching is adding some random content to a GET parameter:
www.example.com/resources/resource.js?random=1234567
You can for example use the current timestamp for this.
This, however, causes any and every access to re-fetch the content, and invalidates any client-side caching mechanism as well. I would use this only as a last resort. If Google are that stringent about caching, I'd rather develop a workflow that allows for easy renaming of files.
I don't know your workflow, but maybe you can work with versioned directories?
Like so:
www.example.com/50/resources/resource.js
www.example.com/51/resources/resource.js
that would keep whatever caching the client employs intact, but whenever there's a change from your end, the browser would reload the content.
I think Its just a cache on the browsers, So when you request file from ajax, just add random parameters or version number.
For example, Stackoverflow add version parameter to static contents like
http://sstatic.net/so/all.css?v=6638
Are you talking about uploading files to the "Downloads" area? Those should have distinct filenames, for example they should be versioned. If you're uploading the script code, that should be submitted by the version control system you're using, and should most definitely keep the same name across revisions.
Edit: your code snippet didn't show up on my page, misunderstood what you're trying. Don't imagine Google would be happy with you referencing the SVN repository every time some client page is loaded :)
What are some of the disadvantages of using an external JS file over including the JS as a part of the ASPX page?
I need to make an architectural decision and heard from coworkers that external JS does not play nice sometimes.
The only downside that I am aware of is the extra HTTP request needed. That downside goes away as soon as the Javascript is used by two pages or the page is reloaded by the same user.
One con is that the browser can't cache the JS if it's in the page. If you reference it externally the browser will cache that file and not re-download it every time you hit a page. With it embedded it'll just add to the file-size of every page.
Also maintainability is something to keep in mind. If it's common JS it'll be a bit more of a pain to make a change when you need to update X number of HTML files' script blocks instead of one JS file.
Personally I've never run into an issue with external files vs embedded. The only time I have JS in the HTML itself is when I have something to bind on document load specifically for that page.
Caching is both a pro and potentially a con, if you are not handling it properly.
The pro is obvious, as it will improve page loading on every page load past the first one.
The con is that when you release new code, it may still be cached by the user's browser, so they may not get the update. This can easily be solved by changing the name on your js file. We automatically version our js with the file's timestamp, and then make sure that points to the create file in the web request through configuration on our web server (mod_rewrite, Apache).
Ask them to define "play nice". Aside from better logical organization, external js files don't have to be transmitted when already cached.
We use YUI compressor to automatically minify and combine external scripts into one when doing production/staging builds.
The only disadvantage I know is that another request must be made to the server in order to retrieve the external JS file. As was said before me you can use tools like YUI compressor to minimize the effects of this.
The advantage however would be that you can keep all of your JS code in a separate more maintainable format.
Another huge advantage to external javascript is the ability to check your syntax with Jslint. That, added to the ability to minify, combine and cache external scripts, makes internal javascript seem like a poor choice.