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 :)
Related
I am working on .Net(C#) application. It's a quite old application and has classic Asp pages, Web Forms and MVC pages. And using single page application concept to load all these pages. All of them have different-different CSS and JS based on business logic they have.
Now the problem is, every time after our release we face same issue that is CSS and JS caching. I know there are couple of ways to deal with this issue, the most common is adding a version and change this version with every release. But the problem is we have thousands of such links so updating all of then I don't find it a solution that we should opt.
Another approach what we thought of is, we can have a module that intercept all the resource requests and we update the link for each CSS and JS file and add some version (what I mentioned in above paragraph). But the problem I can see here is, this will make application slow because of checking and executing some string (File path) manipulation code for each resource requests.
I am sure I am not the only one who is facing this problem, so if anyone can share their experience and approach to handle this problem with minimum changes in code.
As #tim suggested adding query string to the files will help you.
Considering the volume of changes required at your end, I think preparing a rewrite rule for .js and .css files (with pattern matching) and injecting the query string to target URL (with permanent redirection) will help you.
solution for similar query is available here
Please note that, with each build you might need to tweak the configuration as necessary.
What might help: it isn’t necessary to include a version number in your files. It is sufficient if a versionnumber exists in your link.
You could use a (fake) querystring for that. So instead of linking to your css or js file like “style.css” you could link to “style.css?version=1.02”. This querystring part is ignored, but the browser thinks it’s a new file.
Maybe you can go through all of your links one time; make them serverside (in case of webforms) and add this versionpart serverside based on the version of your build. Then for your next releases the problem is solved..
I've been using S3 to host static websites and I've made changes to the HTML & CSS files and have seen those changes reflected in the past. For some reason I go to do the exact same thing I've done before, change the style of one of my sites, and no change would take place. In-fact after deleting all previous files, the old build was still rendering. I had no version control on that particular bucket.
Content-type is set to 'text/css'. My file structure is normal with index.html being in the root. My normal steps of creating or updating new or existing sites has not changed, but S3 has for some reason.
When I click on the index.html file and go to the public url link, it reflects all my changes.
My only fix is to add the full url to the style link.
<link href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/{bucket-name}/css/style.css">
Does anyone know why this is happening or how to fix it other than adding the http link? If not, I hope my solution helps others for this weird S3 issue. Normally you can just upload your files to a bucket, set the policy and finally enable hosting after stating the root html file.
It might be due to your browser caching, where it's loading locally stored assets (CSS stylesheet) from a previous time you've visited the URL rather than fetching the new resources in an attempt to speed up load times. There are settings you can change in your browser to determine how long your browser will hold onto cached resources before fetching new ones.
By setting the stylesheet link directly to the s3 bucket URL, it will cause it to fetch the new stylesheet every time the page is loaded, which leads me to believe that caching is the issue here.
Try clearing your cache and see if it solves the problem.
Here is a deeper explanation of the concept with respect to browsers, and a list of commands to perform a cache refresh depending on what browser/OS you have!
I think it's the CSS folder's doesn't allow you to access the files inside. If you make the folder public, it will work.
Select all your files and folders, go to actions tab and then select make public to allow objects to access one another.
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.
I'm building a backend admin system which edits json files that control the look and feel of the main site. I want to add a 'preview' button before the user hits save. To do that, I want to use the main site, but instead of calling the actual json file in production, save a temp version of it and redirect this user's traffic for that file to the temp file - from the original site code.
i've considered both chrome pluggins, configuring iframe somehow or, in worst case scenario, grabbing the production front-end, parsing out the call to the prod json file and replacing with new temp json file. That is obviously not ideal as it would entail a lot of work and if anything changes on the prod site, this will have to be updated.
I would love your ideas!
Do you have access to the main site's source code? You could implement a preview option from the main site which accepts a GET parameter and uses a temporary JSON setting based on this GET parameter.
From the backend admin system's point of view, it's just a matter of adding the JSON as part of the ajax GET request.
Unfortunately though, there is no easy way of doing this if you don't have access to the main site's source code or if you can't reach out to whoever maintains that main site.
Your cleanest option might be to recreate the main site's look and feel instead and pass it off as a "preview".
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.