Newsgroups: php.general,php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.general:325698 php.internals:95470
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A5DD1C35-57B9-446C-B884-46979AD28DEC@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
References: <CACMzB5ccYey3m2h_eWzk+okDXy0ANWXD4M-Yv0JfJu2i=FMWnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5E615A59-AC2B-455F-9438-D295419F3767@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
 <CACMzB5cjhfs0s88ohW=Rq4DA2-2dv1-EKGt7ZWnSLT8Sb0OvKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <33E6F0A8-A14B-4590-A18C-FF6D6E029D0A@gmail.com> <CACMzB5dUfmWofWWq379tmnqYQ69XjAWs8PLv12Jct2NrNaczhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3B285FFA-4C62-421D-A5B5-E5F205C53C02@gmail.com> <CACMzB5ehV9iB2NWtfH7qNzacu-OXMagDAJ82iQCX-OknEXxTtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A5DD1C35-57B9-446C-B884-46979AD28DEC@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 20:45:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPJtNhXRdLS0W2Rt95VvOff9uDGz8e1DTZmmRU2E16BuEd_cJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
Cc: Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com>, Joshua Kehn <josh.kehn@gmail.com>, 
	"php-general@lists.php.net" <php-general@lists.php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137cfd2fd1dd6053b1713aa
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
From: azizsaleh@gmail.com (Aziz Saleh)

--001a1137cfd2fd1dd6053b1713aa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>
> On 28 August 2016 01:31:50 BST, Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@
> gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Joshua Kehn <josh.kehn@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Apache handles gzipping just fine. http://httpd.apache.org/
> >> docs/current/mod/mod_deflate.html
> >>
> >> and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when
> >evaluating
> >> content and js for specific URLs
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why that would be required. Why doesn't the HTML
> >reference
> >> the assets required directly?
> >>
> >
> >
> >that would result in *way* too many HTTP requests dude ;)
> >
> You're doing it wrong
>
> >i'm thinking i evaluate what URL is called up in PHP, figure out what
> >cache
> What's wrong with front end evaluating what js it needs to request, like
> angular or react does?
> >files are needed (i now use multiple stages of cache files for some
> >stuff
> >like the main HTML template), and output a new "master cache file" that
> >is
> >a file that gets called up rather quickly with readfile() after a
> >file_exists(translateURLtoFilesystempath($untranslatedContentURL)) to
> >see
> >if regeneration for any particular URL is needed..
> >
> >public function translateURLtoFilesystempath ($url) {
> >            $r = $url;
> >            $r = str_replace('/','---',$r);
> >            $r = str_replace('?','-_-',$r);
> >            $r = str_replace('&','__-',$r);
> >            $r = str_replace('=','___',$r);
> >            return '--_'.$r;
> >}
> >public function translateFilesystempathToURL ($path) {
> >            $r = preg_replace ('#.*--_#', '', $path);
> >            $r = str_replace('---','/',$r);
> >            $r = str_replace('-_-','?',$r);
> >            $r = str_replace('__-','&',$r);
> >            $r = str_replace('___','=',$r);
> >            return $r;
> >}
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> and for noobish developers it might be very convenient to add this to
> >php
> >> readfile() afterall
> >>
> >>
> >> Convenient and right are often two different ways to solve a problem.
> >I
> >> try to not offer convenient solutions that are not right.
> >>
> >
> >yea, that's the C++ attitude ;) you do know C++ got dinosaured for a
> >*more
> >simple and intuitive* C# right? ;)
>
> That's not what happened at all. C++ is alive and well, C# has always
> served a different purpose
>
> >
> >>
> >> --jk
> >>
> >> On Aug 27, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@
> >> gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> yea ok.. "something upstream".. is that nginx easy to stack above /
> >next
> >> to / under apache2? i'm really used to apache2..
> >> and for noobish developers it might be very convenient to add this to
> >php
> >> readfile() afterall..
> >>
> >> and my PHP handles static file serving only when needed, when
> >evaluating
> >> content and js for specific URLs to fit in a common HTML site
> >template for
> >> instance..
> >> you know of a better way? i'm all ears :)
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Joshua Kehn <josh.kehn@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why is PHP handling static file serving? This is squarely outside of
> >it's
> >>> domain. Have nginx or something upstream handle gzipping content.
> >>>
> >>> --jk
> >>>
> >>> > On Aug 27, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Rene Veerman <
> >>> rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > eh no, i'm a big fan of caching output in js / json cache files :)
> >>> > but those still need to get gzipped... not just my main JS file,
> >also my
> >>> > photoalbum contents -> another 1Mb of JSON content...
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Ashley Sheridan <
> >>> ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On 27 August 2016 17:52:48 BST, Rene Veerman
> ><rene.veerman.netherlands@
> >>> >> gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> Hi..
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> First off, i love PHP. Many thanks for keeping it free too.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> However, i've noticed that gzipping the 1Mb of javascript that
> >my
> >>> >>> seductiveapps.com needs, takes a relatively long time (measured
> >over
> >>> a
> >>> >>> total page load time which i'd like to bring down from it's
> >current 10
> >>> >>> seconds, about a second or even more is spent gzipping (by a
> >core i5
> >>> >>> machine))..
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Are you building the js each time it's requested? Have you
> >thought
> >>> about
> >>> >> building it as a deployment step for production?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> At one time, i spent time building PHP code that cached the
> >>> >>> already-gzipped
> >>> >>> content and outputted that with just readfile().. But i never
> >got it
> >>> to
> >>> >>> work a second time, unfortunately..
> >>> >> Why don't you want the web server to handle the gzip side of
> >things? It
> >>> >> would make more sense surely?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Could you pretty please add this to the core of PHP? Shouldn't
> >be that
> >>> >>> hard
> >>> >>> for the internals team right?..
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Many thanks in advance for even considering to do this..
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> with regards,
> >>> >>> Rene Veerman,
> >>> >>> CEO + CTO of seductiveapps.com
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
> >brevity.
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Combine all of your JS to 1 file, minimize it and then serve it. After
initial load it should be fine. That is how most systems I worked on with
it and works fine. The browser won't have to download it multiple times
(depending on user settings).

1MB of javascript is huuuuuge, I don't want to say you are doing it wrong,
but something is going on. jQuery library itself is just 85kb compressed.

As a developer, the way I do it is make sure that my architecture design is
correct (which language/systems/etc.. to use). Once that is done for my
purpose, the language usually doesn't matter.

--001a1137cfd2fd1dd6053b1713aa--