| Author |
Message |
zacklk
Regular
Joined: Mar 06, 2010
Posts: 79
|
 Posted:
Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:30 am |
 
|
Hey guys, i was just wondering why RavenNuke doesn't use Google hosted jQuery files. I have read about it a lot, they says it load faster then your hosting your own jQuery files. is there any reasons not to use them? |
|
|
|
|
Palbin
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
Posts: 2403
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:40 am |
|
We do not like to rely on third party solutions because then people come here when their site is not working. There has been talk in the past of making it an option to use a CDN. |
|
|
|
|
zacklk
Regular
Joined: Mar 06, 2010
Posts: 79
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:08 am |
|
tnx Palbin. i was wondering thats why i asked. thanks for the reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
kguske
Site Admin
Joined: Jun 04, 2004
Posts: 5996
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:46 am |
|
Some CDNs are reliable, and using Google to host at least the main jQuery script will help. Making it optional is also good - just in case.
To clarify, the main benefit is that it caches it (the jquery.js file) from the Google site (which is supposed to be faster) so that you can use the same cached file on multiple sites that use the CDN. Another benefit is that it reduces load on your server. |
|
|
|
|
|
montego
Former Admin in Good Standing
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: 9070
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:42 am |
|
...and, since Google is committed to providing these APIs, we have the assurances of a "giant" that the CDN is going to be both high availability as well as fast. I, too, agree with configurable just in case... |
|
|
|
|
|
zacklk
Regular
Joined: Mar 06, 2010
Posts: 79
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:38 pm |
|
So you guys are saying its better to use google CDN lest for the main jQuery right. i like to test this out. let me see if i can do it and post back here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.ravenphpscripts.com/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
:: 
::
