Large sends seem to crash the playground with a JSON parse error.
eg change the first example 'Simple send' to send `10000000000000000000` (`send [USD/2 10000000000000000000]`) and there's a crash
"ECMA for instance has made all the standards for DVD and optical disks. There were 5 recording formats. So there you are a little bit uneasy, of course. And again after a few beers I can ask the people in the room. Why do you want to have 5 formats? Do you still call that standardization? The answer is always the same: You are well paid. Shut up"
> If you include the hash of application.js in its filename, I don't see the problem.
Then, and I'm not meaning to sound harsh here, but you don't understand how to generate permanently cachable URLs, and that's what's required here.
If dependencies aren't included in calculating that hash then some users may run several different versions of the application at once (with all the errors that entails).
> for a page with 2.4MB of JS spread over 296 files.
Fair point, there is always sweet spot in benchmarks like this. That said there are examples of delays that they mention which seem to be independent of the amount of requests.
>> I believe you misread. They use a shallow tree in their scout js file; all of the resources a page will need are declared there
Being shallow doesn't fix the problem when resources are split up at all and that's what the article (correctly) suggests to benefit from HTTP/2 features. As we move away from a single bundle.js file we need to think more about how to manage splits. E.g. The article talks about splitting into `application` and `vendor` hashes, and you mention grouping by churn or functionality. So presumably we agree that being able to split files without significant speed loss is a major feature of HTTP/2.
All I'm suggesting is that the filename hashing strategies need to be improved to avoid application errors when splitting.
If we don't improve filename hashing strategies then we'd still have to rely on small HTTP cache durations, or we'd get temporary errors while caches expire, which is a problem because the whole point of the article is to have extremely long cache durations. As they say,
"Files loaded by the scout can have extremely long cache times because [...]"
Then as the article says,
"This can be solved by using hashes of the file contents rather than version numbers: vendor-d41d8cd98f.js. If a file has not changed, its hash will remain the same."
This is bad advice because they don't talk about dependencies affecting hashes. Even if that file hasn't changed but it depends on another file then its hash needs to change too, or else application.js will will have different contents depending on when it was loaded. Eg.
application.js has a requirejs import of vendor.js
requirejs(["vendor.js"], function(vendor){
});
So if we generated a naive hash as suggested then application-45345345345.js might look like,
And now you can see the problem that application.js didn't change but it's dependencies did, so application-45345345345.js will have different data depending on when you access it which is exactly what you don't want with long HTTP cache durations. This can cause mismatches in what version of a file is imported, and cause application errors.
The only way to have permanent URLs with content that doesn't change (a prerequisite for long HTTP cache durations) is to include dependencies in the calculation of filename hashes. Or you could have an dynamic resolver (eg. based on a manifest file) but ES6 and SVG have static imports. More to the point though, if you can resolve it at build time why not?
When they say "This can be solved by using hashes of the file contents" this is a fundamental mistake and it's simply bad advice.
And 'building for http2' seems to be advocating hashes in filenames without neccesarily walking the dependencies, which can have cache problems http://holloway.nz/r/hashes-in-filenames/
ES6 imports are static (you can't use JS to dynamically include a file) so this means transitive dependencies need to be resolved at build time, not by using a manifest file which resolves paths clientside. This also applies to (eg) SVGs that reference JPEGs because you probably don't want JS involved there either. Manifest files are a bad idea, except perhaps for instructing webservers to tell browsers to preemptively download files. AFAIK there isn't a standard for this yet so a manifest doesn't solve the problem.
Ps. I've got a gulp build for http2-style packing and I'll release it on my github in a few weeks (same account as my username)
Alternative is my Docvert http://github.com/holloway/docvert-python3 software... it works on Linux/Windows/OSX though it's mostly for reading DOCX/DOC/ODT and not for writing.
I'm not really that familiar with Xopus so I can't really comment. Judging from the screenshots (E.g. DITA) it looks like it has a lot of per-schema customisations which my software doesn't have.
tldr; I'm going to allow double <enter>, and I'm going to add a [+] to the top-left of every block but that's not done yet and in the meantime you'll have to edit the XML ('view source') to make those kind of changes.
Long answer: Currently hitting <enter> clones the current block element but when there are block elements within block elements (such as chapter > para) there's no way to know what <enter> should mean. Other software (some wordprocessors) use double <enter> to step up a level, and I guess I'll support that. For UI reasons though I think that I'll also add a [+] button to the top-left of block elements (above the vertical label, above the nodeName). And I should also support pasting XML more (it kind of works right now but it needs more work).
I'll be a bit busy for the next week on a live split-view of the XML, but after that I'll work on cloning nesting block elements. I'll say when it's done on @hollowaynz -- cheers :)
