feature request : gzip caching

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

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))..

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..

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

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

ideally this would be an extension to readfile, add a USE_GZIP optional
flags parameter to the readfile() request...

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:52 PM, 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))..

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..

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

9 years ago by Ashley Sheridan — view source — reply

unread

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.

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

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.

9 years ago by Joshua Kehn — view source — reply

unread

Why is PHP handling static file serving? This is squarely outside of it's domain. Have nginx or something upstream handle gzipping content.

--jk

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.

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

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 :)

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.

9 years ago by Joshua Kehn — view source — reply

unread

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?

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.

--jk

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 :)

Why is PHP handling static file serving? This is squarely outside of it's domain. Have nginx or something upstream handle gzipping content.

--jk

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.

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

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 ;)

i'm thinking i evaluate what URL is called up in PHP, figure out what cache
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? ;)

--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 :)

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.

9 years ago by Ashley Sheridan — view source — reply

unread

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.

9 years ago by Aziz Saleh — view source — reply

unread

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/)

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.

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

500Kb of the JS is my framework (which does a lot, you can see it when the
new encryption is done..)..
another 500Kb is things like the full sourcecode for jQuery..
so thanks, i'll use the minified jQuery in the next update.. :)

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/)

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.

9 years ago by Joshua Kehn — view source — reply

unread

500Kb of the JS is my framework (which does a lot, you can see it when
the
new encryption is done..)..
another 500Kb is things like the full sourcecode for jQuery..
so thanks, i'll use the minified jQuery in the next update.. :)

Lugging around 500KB of JavaScript seems incredibly unnecessary.

But if you insist on it, check out http://rollupjs.org and see how much
it cuts down.

--jk

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

i'm working on comprehensive caching (and true obfuscation) with PHP for
HTML, CSS, JS and JSON.. it's nearly done, and i've always served my
javascript as a concatenated file.. i have well over 20 different
sourcefiles you know.. takes too long with the http overhead for them to be
in seperate requests..

the obfuscator is opensourced and will stay free to use, at
https://github.com/seductiveapps/webappObfuscator which i'll update with my
latest sources in a few minutes..
i'm taking comments about the thing.. i'll start a seperate thread on
php-general@lists.php.org about too within half an hour or so...

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Rouven Weßling <rouven.wessling@mailbox.org

wrote:

If you're using Nginx, the gzip_static module (http://nginx.org/en/docs/
http/ngx_http_gzip_static_module.html) is probably a better choice for
what you're trying to do. Except in exceptional circumstances you shouldn't
serve static assets through a PHP at all.

On 27 Aug 2016, at 18:55, 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))..

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..

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

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

Please don't top-post.

Nginx was probably suggested as a lightweight web server, instead of
Apache. I can't say I've ever seen both used at the same time.

Any developer who is serious about their career has an understanding of how
web servers work and the server caching capabilities. If they don't, I
think it's fair to say they're still pretty junior and ideally would be
helped by a more senior developer.

I struggle to understand why you're making PHP responsible for trying to
cache js files that are only requested by the front end. It feels like
you're overcomplicating things somewhat.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk

i'll top-post whenever i like.. don't tell other ppl how to format
documentation / discussions, please.

and to answer to your comment : i strongly disagree. it makes sense for
those working on complicated webapps to limit the number of knowledge pools
they must master and keep up to date..
hell, i dont even get into canvas and webgl because the knowledge domain is
so large and different from my domain; HTML, JS, CSS, JSON..
seriously, you can not expect complicated beautiful apps to be written for
browsers until you recognize that limitation on human ability..

9 years ago by Aziz Saleh — view source — reply

unread

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

Please don't top-post.

Nginx was probably suggested as a lightweight web server, instead of
Apache. I can't say I've ever seen both used at the same time.

Any developer who is serious about their career has an understanding of how
web servers work and the server caching capabilities. If they don't, I
think it's fair to say they're still pretty junior and ideally would be
helped by a more senior developer.

I struggle to understand why you're making PHP responsible for trying to
cache js files that are only requested by the front end. It feels like
you're overcomplicating things somewhat.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk

i'll top-post whenever i like.. don't tell other ppl how to format
documentation / discussions, please.

and to answer to your comment : i strongly disagree. it makes sense for
those working on complicated webapps to limit the number of knowledge pools
they must master and keep up to date..
hell, i dont even get into canvas and webgl because the knowledge domain is
so large and different from my domain; HTML, JS, CSS, JSON..
seriously, you can not expect complicated beautiful apps to be written for
browsers until you recognize that limitation on human ability..

The top post rule is a guideline for all PHP mailing lists:

http://php.net/mailing-lists.php
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD

I expect that if you minimize your entire JS file it would be around 200kb
(since jQuery itself goes down from 500kb to 85kb).

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

fiiine, i dont wanna get booted off the list.. ;)

yea, with the long var names i use and the obfuscator knocking that down to
3 letter each.. should be sweet :)

i'll probably continue on wednesday, when i've installed my new SSD.. right
now runtime for obfuscation of what needs to work (my own sources and
databases for my seductiveapps.com) is at an uncomfy minute to two minutes
(more like two minutes actually), and i've also ordered more RAM for my dev
machine.. should make the finishing touches light and easy instead of
frustrating and hard.. i also worked 15 hours or so per day for the last 3
days, so i can use a rest..
disclaimer : it's done when it's done, and unexpected long development
freezes might occur.. (it's the only way i can do what i do)..

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@
gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

Please don't top-post.

Nginx was probably suggested as a lightweight web server, instead of
Apache. I can't say I've ever seen both used at the same time.

Any developer who is serious about their career has an understanding of
how
web servers work and the server caching capabilities. If they don't, I
think it's fair to say they're still pretty junior and ideally would be
helped by a more senior developer.

I struggle to understand why you're making PHP responsible for trying to
cache js files that are only requested by the front end. It feels like
you're overcomplicating things somewhat.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk

i'll top-post whenever i like.. don't tell other ppl how to format
documentation / discussions, please.

and to answer to your comment : i strongly disagree. it makes sense for
those working on complicated webapps to limit the number of knowledge
pools
they must master and keep up to date..
hell, i dont even get into canvas and webgl because the knowledge domain
is
so large and different from my domain; HTML, JS, CSS, JSON..
seriously, you can not expect complicated beautiful apps to be written for
browsers until you recognize that limitation on human ability..

The top post rule is a guideline for all PHP mailing lists:

http://php.net/mailing-lists.php
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.
MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD

I expect that if you minimize your entire JS file it would be around 200kb
(since jQuery itself goes down from 500kb to 85kb).

9 years ago by Joshua Kehn — view source — reply

unread

From: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

Please don't top-post.

Nginx was probably suggested as a lightweight web server, instead of
Apache. I can't say I've ever seen both used at the same time.

Any developer who is serious about their career has an understanding
of how
web servers work and the server caching capabilities. If they don't, I
think it's fair to say they're still pretty junior and ideally would
be
helped by a more senior developer.

I struggle to understand why you're making PHP responsible for trying
to
cache js files that are only requested by the front end. It feels like
you're overcomplicating things somewhat.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk

i'll top-post whenever i like.. don't tell other ppl how to format
documentation / discussions, please.

and to answer to your comment : i strongly disagree. it makes sense
for
those working on complicated webapps to limit the number of knowledge
pools
they must master and keep up to date..
hell, i dont even get into canvas and webgl because the knowledge
domain is
so large and different from my domain; HTML, JS, CSS, JSON..
seriously, you can not expect complicated beautiful apps to be written
for
browsers until you recognize that limitation on human ability..

Works on “complicated webapps” and “limits number of knowledge
pools” are opposites. You need to find the right tool for the job. In
this case, PHP is not the right tool.

--jk

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

with all due respect, you sound like you don't know what you're talking
about ok.. i rest my case at the arguments i presented, confident it'll
convince the internals team (which is what this is about, ok)..

From: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

Please don't top-post.

Nginx was probably suggested as a lightweight web server, instead of
Apache. I can't say I've ever seen both used at the same time.

Any developer who is serious about their career has an understanding of how
web servers work and the server caching capabilities. If they don't, I
think it's fair to say they're still pretty junior and ideally would be
helped by a more senior developer.

I struggle to understand why you're making PHP responsible for trying to
cache js files that are only requested by the front end. It feels like
you're overcomplicating things somewhat.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk

i'll top-post whenever i like.. don't tell other ppl how to format
documentation / discussions, please.

and to answer to your comment : i strongly disagree. it makes sense for
those working on complicated webapps to limit the number of knowledge pools
they must master and keep up to date..
hell, i dont even get into canvas and webgl because the knowledge domain is
so large and different from my domain; HTML, JS, CSS, JSON..
seriously, you can not expect complicated beautiful apps to be written for
browsers until you recognize that limitation on human ability..

Works on “complicated webapps” and “limits number of knowledge pools” are
opposites. You need to find the right tool for the job. In this case, PHP
is not the right tool.

--jk

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont appreciate
trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important), ok..

From: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

Please don't top-post.

Nginx was probably suggested as a lightweight web server, instead of
Apache. I can't say I've ever seen both used at the same time.

Any developer who is serious about their career has an understanding of how
web servers work and the server caching capabilities. If they don't, I
think it's fair to say they're still pretty junior and ideally would be
helped by a more senior developer.

I struggle to understand why you're making PHP responsible for trying to
cache js files that are only requested by the front end. It feels like
you're overcomplicating things somewhat.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP] feature request : gzip caching
To: Ashley Sheridan ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk

i'll top-post whenever i like.. don't tell other ppl how to format
documentation / discussions, please.

and to answer to your comment : i strongly disagree. it makes sense for
those working on complicated webapps to limit the number of knowledge pools
they must master and keep up to date..
hell, i dont even get into canvas and webgl because the knowledge domain is
so large and different from my domain; HTML, JS, CSS, JSON..
seriously, you can not expect complicated beautiful apps to be written for
browsers until you recognize that limitation on human ability..

Works on “complicated webapps” and “limits number of knowledge pools” are
opposites. You need to find the right tool for the job. In this case, PHP
is not the right tool.

--jk

9 years ago by Kalle Sommer Nielsen — view source — reply

unread

2016-08-28 3:42 GMT+02:00 Rene Veerman rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com:

i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont appreciate
trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important), ok..

"JK" is his initials, "Joshua Kehn". Please be careful when posting
and make sure you read over messages an extra time before hitting
send.

--
regards,

Kalle Sommer Nielsen
PHP Core Developer
kalle@php.net

9 years ago by Rene Veerman — view source — reply

unread

noted, and sorry about confusing it, but can we rest this discussion here?
i dont wanna clog up the thread any further..

2016-08-28 3:42 GMT+02:00 Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

:
i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont
appreciate
trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important), ok..

"JK" is his initials, "Joshua Kehn". Please be careful when posting
and make sure you read over messages an extra time before hitting
send.

--
regards,

Kalle Sommer Nielsen
PHP Core Developer
kalle@php.net

9 years ago by German Geek — view source — reply

unread

Another thing sort of related to consider is HTTP2. Instead of
concatenating all scripts to one, it seems to be a much better and
performant solution.

See https://youtu.be/G62aCRIlONU .

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 at 14:57 Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com> wrote:

noted, and sorry about confusing it, but can we rest this discussion here?
i dont wanna clog up the thread any further..

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net
wrote:

2016-08-28 3:42 GMT+02:00 Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com

:
i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont
appreciate
trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important),
ok..

"JK" is his initials, "Joshua Kehn". Please be careful when posting
and make sure you read over messages an extra time before hitting
send.

--
regards,

Kalle Sommer Nielsen
PHP Core Developer
kalle@php.net

9 years ago by Walter Parker — view source — reply

unread

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com> wrote:

noted, and sorry about confusing it, but can we rest this discussion here?
i dont wanna clog up the thread any further..

Before you go, two observations:

First, your website doesn't actually appear to work in a modern version of
Chrome. Should it?
Second, if you want a binding EULA on your website, you might want to check
with an IP lawyer.

Putting a EULA in the page source comments will not meet the conditions of
contract law in most countries. To anybody knowledgeable about the field,
your EULA reflects a TV show level of understanding of the law.

Walter

--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

9 years ago by Aziz Saleh — view source — reply

unread

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Rene Veerman <
rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com> wrote:

noted, and sorry about confusing it, but can we rest this discussion
here?
i dont wanna clog up the thread any further..

Before you go, two observations:

First, your website doesn't actually appear to work in a modern version of
Chrome. Should it?
Second, if you want a binding EULA on your website, you might want to check
with an IP lawyer.

Putting a EULA in the page source comments will not meet the conditions of
contract law in most countries. To anybody knowledgeable about the field,
your EULA reflects a TV show level of understanding of the law.

Walter

--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D.
Brandeis

+1 on Windows/ Latest FF, didn't want to mention it because I assume it was
still under works.

9 years ago by Joshua Kehn — view source — reply

unread

i did notice the -jk (meaning u were joking).. but i really dont
appreciate
trolling on subjects as fundamental (and to me at least; important),
ok..

“JK” is my initials. I was not joking. However, your obvious failure
to understand domain responsibility with regards to web applications is
almost funny.

--jk