Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [json] Re: IMPORTANT: Remove this line from json2.js before deployment.

Expand Messages
  • Philip Tellis
    2009/12/14 Douglas Crockford ... I think he s suggesting that the people who need to get the point may not actually get it - they ll
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 13, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      2009/12/14 Douglas Crockford <douglas@...>
      >
      > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Douglas, I think this move was brilliant, but as I have twitted, I
      > > wonder how many devs wrote a:
      > >
      > > window.alert = function(){};
      > >
      > > before including external resources, rather than get the real/original
      > > message
      >
      > The point I was making was that if you care about reliability, security, and performance, then you shouldn't load scripts directly from third party servers. Are you suggesting that it is ok if you stub out alert first?

      I think he's suggesting that the people who need to get the point may
      not actually get it - they'll just work around it with no idea why you
      put it in there.
    • Andrea Giammarchi
      If you go in YUI 3 Configurator the Result page provides a script to copy and paste to include remotely the library.
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 13, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        If you go in YUI 3 Configurator the Result page provides a script to copy
        and paste to include remotely the library.
        http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/3/configurator/

        If you go in Google Ajax libraries you will find external URIs to use third
        part hosts as trusted safe and secure host with updated libraries.
        http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/documentation/#AjaxLibraries

        If you are using dojo library you probably know about AOL:
        http://dev.aol.com/dojo

        What am I saying is that we are not everybody under https and we trust, for
        whatever reason, some external domain.
        Not everybody could have followed the "alert story", I can already imagine
        developers called 6am in the morning about an alert in the website that does
        not use alerts at all.
        These devs could have quickly solved the problem nullifying the alert
        without caring about why the alert was there and, in the worst case
        scenario, blaming you to have forgot an alert inside your library and
        feeling cool to have solved an unexpected alert problem forever (so try with
        prompt or confirm ...)

        Since the message as is could sound more like you were testing something and
        you forgot an alert, I would rather change the alert message with a link
        that points WHY there is an alert.

        I totally agree with you and it could often be about developers laziness (in
        YUI case they did not use the php loader, etc etc) but at the same time:

        1 - every website could benefit about common external resources thanks to
        distributed cache for common libaries
        2 - this message is not perfectly clear since somebody, YUI! itself, is
        suggesting external resources while you, a Yahoo! engineer, are saying that
        this is so bad that anybody should avoid this technique

        Do you see what I mean?

        Regards


        On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...>wrote:

        >
        >
        > --- In json@yahoogroups.com <json%40yahoogroups.com>, Andrea Giammarchi
        > <andrea.giammarchi@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Douglas, I think this move was brilliant, but as I have twitted, I
        > > wonder how many devs wrote a:
        > >
        > > window.alert = function(){};
        > >
        > > before including external resources, rather than get the real/original
        > > message
        >
        > The point I was making was that if you care about reliability, security,
        > and performance, then you shouldn't load scripts directly from third party
        > servers. Are you suggesting that it is ok if you stub out alert first?
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Andrea Giammarchi
        Just to underline another thing: ... reliability ... they are including the de facto official JSON library for JavaScript security ... they trust your
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 13, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Just to underline another thing:

          On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...>wrote:

          >
          > The point I was making was that if you care about reliability, security,
          > and performance
          >
          >
          reliability ... they are including the de facto official JSON library for
          JavaScript
          security ... they trust your implementation and they trust the fact you keep
          updating it
          performances ... they are using a potentially "common used external
          resource" so if the browser cached already that version performances will be
          better for every website that includes it plus they are saving bandwidth.

          As you can see somebody could think that your points ARE the reason they
          included JSON via the direct source, rather than their local copy
          potentially non updated and served even if almost every browser has stored
          somewhere exactly the same library.

          So, finally, I would think about a proper specific server or an official
          repository Github style so that people than use the raw minified and gzipped
          version with the 304 response, but if you think nobody should ever include
          external scripts, you should tell us why we all have YUI configurator
          scripts, google adsense/analytic files, etc etc.

          Regards


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Leen Besselink
          ... Hi Andrea, I think you are forgetting that the (current) json.org website is probably just a shared-hosting account. So that probably means it s not as
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 14, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            On 12/13/2009 09:34 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
            >
            > Just to underline another thing:
            >
            > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Douglas Crockford
            > <douglas@... <mailto:douglas%40crockford.com>>wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > The point I was making was that if you care about reliability, security,
            > > and performance
            > >
            > >
            > reliability ... they are including the de facto official JSON library for
            > JavaScript
            > security ... they trust your implementation and they trust the fact
            > you keep
            > updating it
            > performances ... they are using a potentially "common used external
            > resource" so if the browser cached already that version performances
            > will be
            > better for every website that includes it plus they are saving bandwidth.
            >
            > As you can see somebody could think that your points ARE the reason they
            > included JSON via the direct source, rather than their local copy
            > potentially non updated and served even if almost every browser has stored
            > somewhere exactly the same library.
            >

            Hi Andrea,

            I think you are forgetting that the (current) json.org website is
            probably just a shared-hosting
            account.

            So that probably means it's not as reliable as something Google or Yahoo
            might do for some of the js-libraries.

            Performance-wise it would be really bad if everyone started hotlinking
            to just that one (or maybe 2 or 3) server(s) as well.

            Security-wise, something like the CDN-like setup Google and Yahoo are
            doing have a lot of save-gaurds,
            like monitoring tools and employees for file-changes. Seperate dedicated
            datacenters or atleast 'cages' of
            dedicated 19"-racks of servers. And not to forget procedures.

            While I do think getting automatic updates of json[2].js would be really
            interresting, because it's a very
            security-sensitive library.

            So in the current situation, it's a really bad idea.

            >
            > So, finally, I would think about a proper specific server or an official
            > repository Github style so that people than use the raw minified and
            > gzipped
            > version with the 304 response, but if you think nobody should ever include
            > external scripts, you should tell us why we all have YUI configurator
            > scripts, google adsense/analytic files, etc etc.
            >

            Yes, I think some people would love to see Yahoo add json[2].js to their
            list of js-libraries
            they are already hosting on their own CDN (I think Google has a whole
            list of libraries).

            But maybe Mr. Crockford does not want his personal project to be tied to
            his (current)
            employer or Google. I don't know their, could be many reasons.

            > Regards
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.