Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Voxera93642yWith more and more client side code and libraries there is a higher demand for local caching for performance and a lot of libraries to help.
This exposes a new set of developers to the problem of to much caching.
I have seen the same and part of it will probably lessen once libraries and developers identify which parts should not be cached :)
What about adding a hash to a resource? 🤔
Or perhaps a serviceworker is running
C0D4637142yI believe it's the Pandora's box we call "Cache all the things", I blame pagespeed testing a bit for this
Unfortunately by doing this somethings end up unreliable and a lot of webdevs don't care as they'll have their cache disabled when doing dev/testing which leads to "but it worked on my machine".
Hashing resources or using cache control does work well if used correctly and is added to resources that can not or should not be cached, sadly his takes time to identify elements or scripts that require to be uncached.
I just version the filenames of my static resources like images, scripts and stylesheets.
@alexbrooklyn Half. I don't want to complicate the build process any more than absolutely necessary, and the project is small enough to get away with that.
What's automated is e.g. the styles included in the document headers, that's one line in the template. Or scripts that I need in several places. After re-compiling stuff, the actual pages will be updated accordingly.
Images aren't because they've never changed, and the version is just there to have a consistent naming scheme in case they would change.
mksana2682y@fast-nop: That's exactly the approach our web developer used.
However, can't do much with the UIs I have to use developed by others.
Appearently there are a number of approaches to tackling this, yet even professional companies sometimes seem to fail at properly implementing them.
Reminds me of a discussion I had with the dev of a software that's around more or less in the same shape for 20 years. He was so positive about the web ...but not for the reasons you'd expect. His point was that users have gotten so much more accepting of having to wait or facing errors due to the web forcing them to see these things as the norm rather than exception or even problem. :D