Re: Tomcat relative path

[Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chuck,

On 5/28/2009 9:25 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: tcwarrior [mailto:sr_sdoh@yahoo.com]
>> Subject: Tomcat relative path
>>
>> We had a consultant tell us since we have 49 images
>> loading on our homepage we should change this so 
>> parallel downloads occur.
> 
> I hope you didn't pay that consultant very much.  All web browsers make concurrent requests for images, style sheets, applets, etc., that are embedded in web pages.  However, unless tweaked, most browsers limit the concurrency to two - as recommended by the HTTP RFC.  Nothing you do on the server can change that.

There are actually some things you can do on the server-side that will
affect the parallelism of requests (okay, technically, it's the response
content that controls it, not that the server is controlling the browser).

See these resources for an interesting read:
http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/04/09/dont-use-import/
http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/04/27/loading-scripts-without-blocking/
http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/05/12/sharding-dominant-domains/
http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/05/18/flushing-the-document-early/

I'm sure there are other tricks that can be done, too.

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkopgIYACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PAUhwCcCXaN5Dssbkh+XVnFJpeZ9nY1
TZgAni+gyWRtOjA2eRd52xXdNJ8DXVd0
=Gy95
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

RE: Tomcat relative path

["Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>]

> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Re: Tomcat relative path
> 
> See these resources for an interesting read:
> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/05/12/sharding-dominant-domains/

Yes, it was the sharding one that the OP was trying to use, but that wasn't at all clear from the original message.

 - Chuck


THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.