undefined | Better HN

0 pointsoinksoft14y ago0 comments

It still fails the <C-F> test...and <C-F>download is the first thing I do when I decide that I'd like to try out some library. Nothing wrong with preferring a CDN, but some people want to get the whole thing broken into source files so they can really audit the code properly.

Others also want to host their own because they don't want to introduce another point of failure. For all the supposed reliability of CDN host X, having YUI available when my own CDN goes down isn't helping me much. On the other hand, if YUI goes kaput while my CDN is doing fine, I've got some problems.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

drgath14y ago· 1 in thread

Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree that sites should be allowed to host their own version of YUI because there are some circumstances where it may be necessary. That's why we distribute all the source code to be able to do it. But also keep in mind this is the Yahoo CDN, if it goes down, all of Yahoo goes down. I can't say the CDN won't ever go down, but to my knowledge, it has never happened.

If you are concerned about CDN reliability, for optimal performance I would still use the Yahoo CDN as you get all the benefits of combo-handling, edge-caching, and (soon) server-side dependency calculation. And as a backup, host on your own CDN in the unlikely event Yahoo's CDN goes down.

We'll look into passing the <C-F> test. :)

Jach14y ago

Maybe I'm just weird, but I frequently develop things offline and so I require a local copy of things for dev anyway regardless of if I use the CDN in production or not.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse