When the CDN was slow, every user noticed and thought your website was slow.
You gave away free analytics and made your website worse, there wasn't even a trade off.
There's probably a dozen versions of react that make up a healthy 20% of the web.
> and in a short enough time to not suffer a cache eviction
These assets are cached by version. They can be basically immutable forever, with maximum expiration.
As commented elsewhere, you don't even have to give away free analytics. Just set a referrerPolicy on your <script> tags. And add subresource integrity to protect from the CDN being compromised.
I get that the Storage Isolation needs forced us to blow up the real awesomeness of CDNs. I'm ok with it. But it feels wild me to me to say that the cross-site caching wasn't worth anything. It was a super excellent path to fast loading, was enormously enormously helpful, especially for the age, when very few people had reliably low latency high bandwidth broadband.
That doesn’t mean they don’t get evicted though, right? I imagine a browser has a maximum cache size and FIFOs the cache if it is filled.
The vibe isn't the issue, the implemented solution just didn't work.
It won't work today, but was this really so improbable in the past? There was a time when jQuery was so ubiquitous to be almost a "de-facto standard" at it also had a "canonical url" to load from (per version at least). Why would it have been so improbable that a user visited two or more sites that used the same jQuery version and also included it from the canonical url?
I can only imagine "naturally" producing this scenario by browsing HN in 2010 and clicking every link on the front-page and hoping at least 2 were indie blogs or startups that don't take security seriously, and even then if they're not consecutive, the website between them would have likely evicted the cache.
> if there ever was a cache hit because a user visited one site then yours that coincidentally used the same CDN and query version
This is not how modern browsers work anymore, and the phrasing makes think it isn't a rhetorical statement?
> the user did not notice.
... That's kind of the whole point; they didn't think the website was slow. They didn't think anything. The website opened and then they went on using it. You do understand this, right?
It's in response to the "you should totally direct link your jQuery from this CDN" propaganda.
> That's kind of the whole point; they didn't think the website was slow. They didn't think anything. The website opened and then they went on using it. You do understand this, right?
The marketing pitch included "faster".