[Labs-l] [Labs-announce] [Tools] Announcing cdnjs mirror for toollabs

[Krinkle]

> On 8 Jun 2015, at 19:42, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa at openmailbox.org> wrote:
> 
> Il 08/06/2015 14:58, Yuvi Panda ha scritto:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Ricordisamoa
>> <ricordisamoa at openmailbox.org> wrote:
>>> Il 01/05/2015 10:02, Ricordisamoa ha scritto:
>>>> Thank you SO MUCH!
>>>> Out of curiosity, how does it compare to the 'old' static? Is the latter
>>>> supposed to be deprecated at some point?
>>> 
>>> Any answers to this question?
>> Not sure - the owners of the static tool should respond, maybe? the
>> CDNJS one is certainly faster than /static was (no NFS dependency).
> 
> Is it advisable/worth to migrate tools from /static to CDNJS?

Yes. 

At the very least make sure you're referencing static assets from tools-static.wmflabs.org.
That way the requests are cached better in your browsers, and there's no cookies being sent back and forth.

Both 'static' and 'cdnjs' are on this server now.

E.g. https://tools.wmflabs.org/static-browser/show/bootstrap <https://tools.wmflabs.org/static-browser/show/bootstrap> advertises:
<link rel="stylesheet" href="//tools-static.wmflabs.org/static/bootstrap/3.2.0/css/bootstrap.min.css">

https://tools.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/ <https://tools.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/> points to:
https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/ajax/libs/twitter-bootstrap/3.3.4/css/bootstrap.min.css <https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/cdnjs/ajax/libs/twitter-bootstrap/3.3.4/css/bootstrap.min.css>

As for comparing static-browser to cdnjs.

* cdnjs is loaded from local disk instead of NFS. So web requests are handled faster.
* cdnjs is loaded by an upstream community dedicated to the task. Updates are much faster and more libraries are available.


-- Krinkle

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-l/attachments/20150608/3a7fd200/attachment.html>