I've been doing a little JavaScript (well, more like jQuery) for a while now and one thing I've always been confused about is where I should put my scripts, in the <head> tag or in the <body> tag.
If anyone could clarify this issue, that'd be great. An example of what should go where would be perfect.
Best practices from google and yahoo say that, for performance, javascript should always be put in an external file, and linked to your page with a <script> tag located at the bottom of the html, just before the closing of the <body> element.
This allows the browser to render the entire page right away, instead of stopping to evaluate javascript.
You mentioned three places:
In tags;
In the HTML; and
In an external file.
Let me address each of those.
Best practice is to have common Javascript in one or more external files and the less files the better since each JS file loaded will block loading of the page until that JS file is loaded.
The word "common" is extremely important. What that means is you don't want to put page-specific Javascript code in that external file for caching reasons. Let's say you have a site with 1000 pages. Each page has JS code specific to it. That could either be 1000 different files or one really big file that executes a lot of unnecessary code (eg looking for IDs that aren't on that particular page but are on one of the 999 others). Neither of these outcomes is good.
The first gives you little caching boost. The second can have horrific page load times.
So what you do is put all common functions in one JS file where that JS file only contains functions. In each HTML page you call the JS functions needed for that page.
Ideally your JS files are cached effectively too. Best practice is to use a far futures HTTP Expires header and a version number so the JS file is only loaded once by each browser no matter how many pages they visit. When you change the file you change the version number and it forces a reload. Using mtime (last modified time of the JS file) is a common scheme, giving URLs like:
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/script.js?1233454455"></script>
where that mtime is automatically generated. Your Web server is configured to serve JS files with an appropriate Expires header.
So that mixes external files and in-page scripts in (imho) the best way possible.
The last place you mentioned was in the tag. Here it depends somewhat on what JS libraries and frameworks you use. I'm a huge fan of jQuery, which encourages unobtrusive Javascript. That means you (hopefully) don't put any Javascript in your markup at all. So instead of:
do stuff
you do:
do stuff
with Javascript:
$(function() {
$("#dostuff").click(doStuff);
});
Related
I have a few snippets of javascript scattered about my pages - many are contained in my own .js files, however some of the stuff that I've found online sits directly on the page.
I'm not too familiar with how javascript interacts with a page - is there a difference between adding the script inline or adding a reference to the external file?
There is little difference in using one or the other way. The real difference comes from the advantages/disadvantages that each one has.
Inline scripts
Are loaded in the same page so is not necessary to trigger another request.
Are executed immediately.
The async and defer attributes have no effect
Can be helpful when you are using a server-side dynamic rendering.
External scripts
Gives better separation of concerns and maintainability.
The async and defer attributes have effect so if this attributes are present the script will change the default behavior. This is not possible with inline scripts.
Once a external script is downloaded the browser store it in the cache so if another page reference it no additional download is required.
Can be used to load client code on demand and reduce overall download time and size.
External script files
Much easier to analyse so you can debug more efficiently and read it. This makes life much easier for us as programmers
Download time is reduced as the external file is cached so it can be downloaded with the website
Instead of writing the same script numerous times, an external file can be called and executed anywhere in the code
External files decrease page rendering speed as the browser has to stop parsing and download the external file. This adds a network round trip which will slow everything down. Also because external files are cached it makes it tough to delete them if the have been updated
Inline code
Inline code reduces the number of HTTP requests making improving the performance of the webpage. This because the code is loaded in the same page so a request is not needed
Inline script is executed immediately
Although inline code is much harder to read and analyse as it just looks like a lump of code chucked together. It is hard work having to find the problem when debugging, making life as a programmer tough
Hope this helps you understand a bit more :)
Looking at the <script> tag documentation, you can see that you can use the async and defer attributes only with external scripts, which might have an effect on scripts that do not use event listeners as entry points.
Other than that, inlining renders a browser unable to cache it on its own, so if you use the same script on different pages, the browser cache cannot kick in. So it might have an effect on performance and/or bandwidth usage.
And, of course, splitting code up into files is one way of organizing it.
Generally there is no difference as indicated in the comments. But, if the snippet is embedded in the middle of the HTML in the page and it is not a function, it is executed immediately. Such script segments may have a difference in behavior when moved to a separate JS file when enough care is not taken.
I'm using jquery and some ordinary javascript on my site and I've been told that I'd be better off loading all the javascript in a minimized form at the closing body tag of my pages rather than in the header as they are now.
I've also been told that I should clump all my JS together into one file to keep the number of requests down, although I've also been told there's some of my javascript which won't be able to be included in this mega file because it's needed by FB (for example).
So now I'm totally confused. For a start,
1) I use jquery and the jquery.ui, can these be lumped into the mega file and loaded at the end?
2) Can I just stick everything which currently appears in my page source surrounded by script tags into this file?
3) What must I leave out?
It's all a bit over-whelming when you're a learner
the site is at http://www.traditionalirishgifts.com/ as you can see I load:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.8/jquery-ui.min.js"></script>
as well as a heap of other javascripts
As the comments point out, the answer depends on many variables.
Are you using any server side web framework? Any web framework worth it's money will offer you options for javascript and css concatenation. Typically these options allow you to define how exactly you want the concatenation to happen. Certain js files will change infrequently, example jquery, jquery ui. Whereas certain other files will change frequently, example your own application scripts. All these can be taken into consideration when deciding on what to concatenate.
If you could share which server side technology and what web server are you using, I can help you find specific solutions.
With regards to your three questions, its all about managing your dependencies. If your application scripts or "whatever currently appears in my page source surrounded by script tags" depend on jQuery or any other library, then they will need to included AFTER jquery or said library.
Dependency could also exist wrt the DOM. If your scripts output html directly using document.write then you will not be able to move them around easily.
I went through the html of the homepage of the site you linked to. The js code in that file can be moved to just before the end of the body, though you will need to ensure they appear in the same order. All the plugins you have included they seem to initialize themselves on document.ready which occurs only after all the html/js/css is parsed.
You are already referencing jquery/jqueryui from a CDN, so don't add them to the concatenated file.
I did not notice any code that you wouldn't be able to concatenate (on account of using FB). That said you could ask the person, who told you that, to explain why.
Finally, you can read more about optimizing front-end load times on YSlow (http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html) and Google Page Speed (https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/best-practices/rules_intro)
Personally, I would suggest you go ahead and move everything to just before the end of body. If something breaks, then ask questions on SO specific to the errors you receive.
Question
If you use a single javascript file to hold all scripts, where do you put scripts that are for just one page?
Background
This may be a matter of opinion or "best practice" but I'm interested in others' opinions:
I'm using the html5 Boilerplate on a project. They recommend you place all javascript in a single file script.js for speed and consistency. Seems reasonable.
However, I have a bit of geolocation script that's only relevant to a single page, and not others. Should I break convention and just put this script on the page below my calls to the javascript libraries it depends on? Just put calls to the relevant functions (located in the script.js) file, below the links to the libraries they depend on?
Thanks!
The good folks at html5 boilerplate recommend putting all of your javascript in script.js so that the browser will only have to load that one file (along with the others that h5bp uses) and to allow caching of that file.
The idea is not to get caught up in the "recommended" way, and to think about things related to your own applications.
This geolocation file is only going to be used on this one page, right? It will never be used anywhere else.
The script.js file will be used on multiple pages.
Well, then it wouldn't make sense to put a "whole script" that will only be needed on one page in the script.js file. You should make the file external and call it separately on the page that it is needed. This will keep you from bloating the script.js file for functionality that may never get used by that user.
However, if your "whole script" for the geolocation functionality is pretty small, then include it in script.js. If it doesn't add to the speed of the download for that file, then it makes sense to include it there.
The gist of all of this is, What is the best trade off for my application?
These things we know to be true:
cached js files are good
fewer files to download are good
smaller files to download are good
maintenance is important
Once you think of these things in terms of your application, the decision making becomes a bit easier. And remember, decisions that trade off milliseconds are not going to make much of a difference in your user's "perception" of how fast your page is.
The browser will only download the .js files once (unless something is happening to discourage the browser from caching). So if you expect all of your users to hit the one page that uses geolocation sometime during their session, then you might as well give it to them early. If you expect maybe a tiny percent of your users to eventually hit the geolocation page, then maybe you might want to split them.
Split it out into a separate .js file so that it can be cached. Then reference both external .js files from your page.
I think you should put it in a separate file. Putting all the scripts in one single file could cause unexpected behavior and conflicts. I like to have one script file for the javascript that all pages will use containing plugins, helper functions, formatting functions etc. And then create one separate js file for everything that is relevant just for each page.
If you still want to have just one js file in the browser you could take advantage of one of those utilities that combine multiple js files into one.
I have a couple of questions that are somewhat related so I'm posting them all on a single question on SO...
Question 1:
I'm currently doing this Facebook application where I'm using jQuery UI Tabs, there's only 4 where 2 of them are loaded through Ajax. The main page is index.html, this is where the tabs code is placed and for the 2 tabs loaded through Ajax, I have two different files, tab1.html and tab2.html.
Currently, the jQuery tabs initialization and Facebook JavaScript initialization is done on index.html. Both tab1.html and tab2.html have JavaScript code that belongs to those pages. For instance, tab2.html has a form and there's some JS (with jQuery) code to validate the form, this code is irrelevant to tab1.html as the JS code on tab1.html is irrelevant to tab2.html.
My question is, should I keep doing this or maybe aggregate all the JS/jQuery code in index.html, tab1.html and tab2.html in a single global.js file and then include it in index.html?
I though of doing this but there will be irrelevant code loaded if the user never opens tab1 or tab2. The benefit of using a single global.js file is that I could pack/minify the file, which I couldn't do if I included each code block in each respective tabX.html file.
Question 2:
As I'm using jQuery, I'm also using lots of plugins (actually only 3 for now, but that number can grow). Some of them provide a minified JS and I use those when available, when they are not, I use the normal versions of course.
There's also the requests problem. If I have lots of plugins, say 10, it will be 10 requests for those plugins. And there is also the fact that some plugins are used in tab1.html but not on tab2.html and vice-verse.
How should I load all the plugins in a minified/packed version on a single web request? Should I do that manually before publishing my app (packing and merging them into a single file) or could I use the PHP version of Dean Edwards's Packer and pack/merge all plugins on the fly? Would this be a good approach?
Question 3:
If the answer on Q1 was something like "merge all code in a single global.js file", should I include the global.js file in the packing/merging script I described above on Q2?
Doing this would simplify everything. I could have my development environment properly organized with all .js files, for the plugins and the global.js in the appropriate folders without bothering with anything else. The packing/merging should take care of the rest (pull the files from the respective folders, send the respective JS headers and output one single packed .js file).
The one thing that's confusing me the most is that not all plugins are used for every tab, not all code is for every tab too. Still, a chunk of the code is global to every tab and the index. This also simplifies everything as: a) I don't have to worry to add the needed code to each tabX.html file and can I simply look at them as HTML templates and nothing else; b) I don't have to be bothered in including the necessary plugins where I need them as I'm currently using $.getScript() from jQuery to load the plugins I need when and only when I need them, but I'm not sure this is a good approach and the code feels dirty and ugly like this.
Question 1:
Pack them all into a single .js file. This will make maintenance easier, and the tiny bit of overhead for the user loading a little js they they potentially may not use does not matter. I would also let Google load the jQuery library for you and then have all of your js code in a single separate file.
Question 2:
As these plugins don't really change I would manually combine them. Closure Compiler is good at this. When minifying use the highest setting that does not give any warnings.
Question 3:
Yes you will want to minify the global.js
When the browser downloads the global.js it's cached for an amount of time. Thus when you call the entire global.js again on a different page, its not re-downloaded it looks at your local copy first. So you do a little bit more work at first on the initial download, but from then on, it should be quicker.
Generally best practices related to javascript for speeding up website loads are:
Minify all javascript and put all of it into a single file (make as much of your javascript external as possible).
Put javascript at the bottom of the document.
Force web server to assign expiration date in the future and use a timestamped query string to invalidate old versions of javascript files, this will prevent unnecessary requests for your javascript if it has not changed. (ie: in httpd.conf ExpiresByType application/x-javascript "access plus 1 year", in your document: <script type="text/javascript" src="/allmy.js?v=1285877202"></script>)
Configure your web server to gzip all text files.
The main reason why you should keep too much javascript away from tab pages is because it will kill user experience. When a user clicks on a tab for the first time it will grab all the components needed on the fly which makes it kinda sluggish.
You're question is only semi-specific as we don't know a lot of things about your site like exact file sizes, how the modules are really used.
The general idea would be to find balance between modularity and speed.
When you're combining modules together these are the general ideas you should consider:
how often does this module change?
how often is this module used?
how big is this module (filesize)?
Then put the most used, stable codebase and merge it into one. Then you should include the rest site specific functionality on the tab pages.
Also, make sure to load javascript asynchronously as it won't block rendering of the page (and tabs).
Another combined answer:
if adding all the JS together in packed/minifed version generates no more than 30k of file size you're better off combining it. A single extra connection for a file (assuming it's not cached) is worth 10-20k of extra JS download. This has to do with browsers opening and closing connections vs streaming extra 20k on an established connection. The threshold also depends on your user distribution. If you have a lot of dial-up or low bandwidth users your threshold will be smaller.
I typically recommend combining and loading as 1 file unless the library is very obscure and requires a very edge case for it to be triggered on a page. Ex: Hover triggers functionality Y but it's on a feedback widget that gets less than 1% of traffic- don't bother combining.
Minifying and Packing is a little overrated these days. With the vast majority of browsers supporting gZip the amount of data consolidation gZip provides of the file over the wire during browser transmission has virtually the same effect as min/pack. However, there is a small cost on the browser to unpack it. Having said that, it's still good practice to min/pack the code since not all browsers support it, you may not want the file to be gZip enabled, etc.
I've used online packers against 3rd party module and it works fairly well. However, there are times when it can cause an issue so make sure to test your manually packed version before deploying.
Alternate:
If you feel that your users will rest on your index page for longer than 10 seconds you could pre-load the additional libraries separately using Js Loader Prototype pattern.
Steve Souder's Even Faster Websites is a book you should look into.
Firstly one experience slowdowns because whenever an external script is linked the browser waits for the script to download, parse and then execute. After this only it regains processing rest of the request. So to avoid such slow downs one can look at parallely downloading the scripts. Few techniques are Ajax the scripts if the scripts are in the same domain or use Script Dom element or Script in iframe if the scripts are on external domains
Q1 : For me modularising all the content is a better option with respect to further development if the page content has to be changed constantly. Responsiveness is very important for the end user. A small global.js will help in getting the app up and running.Parallely one can download the tabX.html.
Q2: As the jquery plugins rarely change. The plugins for the tabX.html pages can be downloaded parallely and locally cached so when the tabX.html is loaded the required plugins need not be fetched. SO all the plugins required by the main page should be in one single file and the ones used by the tabX.html's should be in different files.
Q3 : its a personal choice here. Do you want it to be developer friendly or user friendly. I bank on user friendliness. Making responsive and efficient apps is our job !!!. All the advantages of packing everything into a singe files is you will have ease in development. Well ugly code begets beautiful apps :). Users are speed-aholics. For eg. when google changed its 10 results per page to 20 they saw a considerable drop in search queries. So my opinion is not to pack all of them into one and load each parallely
some of the techniques and relevant links on testing each:
XHR eval /ajax : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10009
XHR Injection : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10015
Script in Iframe : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10012
Script DOM element : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10010
Question 1:
The best practice would be to place all js files in a single "global" file. This minimizes your HTTP Requests. Let's say you have 5 plug-ins, this would me you need to do 5 request, wherein if you combine them as one, you only need to request it once. This might be a little bit heavy on the first load, but the next time around this file will be cached by the browser, so..no worries about the size. HOWEVER, be careful about the sequence of the scripts when combining it. (I.E. : JQuery script should be placed first on the js file before JQuery UI's)
http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/web-site-optimization-steps/4
http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/docs/rtt.html
Question 2:
You can do it manually or automatically.Dean Edward's Packer is a good choice. If you're using ASP.NET, you can check MB Compression Handler, if you're using APACHE with PHP perhaps you can change the configuration of your htaccess to gzip it
Question 3:
It'd be better if you pack the "global" javascript file as well. This could save up bandwidth and save more time to load. You got the point, combining all the js files you need for the site will save you time from including individual scripts.
Do you localize your javascript to the page, or have a master "application.js" or similar?
If it's the latter, what is the best practice to make sure your .js isn't executing on the wrong pages?
EDIT: by javascript I mean custom javascript you write as a developer, not js libraries. I can't imagine anyone would copy/paste the jQuery source into their page but you never know.
Putting all your js in one file can help performance (only one request versus several). And if you're using a content distribution network like Akamai it improves your cache hit ratio. Also, always throw inline js at the very bottom of the page (just above the body tag) because that is executed synchronously and can delay your page from rendering.
And yes, if one of the js files you are using is also hosted at google, make sure to use that one.
Here's my "guidelines". Note that none of these are formal, they just seem like the right thing to do.
All shared JS code lives in the SITE/javascripts directory, but it's loaded in 'tiers'
For site-wide stuff (like jquery, or my site wide application.js), the site wide layout (this would be a master page in ASP.net) includes the file. The script tags go at the top of the page.
There's also 'region-wide' stuff (eg: js code which is only needed in the admin section of the site). These regions either have a common layout (which can then include the script tags) or will render a common partial, and that partial can include the script tags)
For less-shared stuff (say my library that's only needed in a few places) then I put a script tag in those HTML pages individually. The script tags go at the top of the page.
For stuff that's only relevant to the single page, I just write inline javascript. I try to keep it as close to it's "target" as possible. For example, if I have some onclick js for a button, the script tag will go below the button.
For inline JS that doesn't have a target (eg: onload events) it goes at the bottom of the page.
So, how does something get into a localised library, or a site-wide library?.
The first time you need it, write it inline
The next time you need it, pull the inline code up to a localised library
If you're referencing some code in a localized library from (approximately) 3 or more places, pull the code up to a region-wide library
If it's needed from more than one region, pull it up to a site-wide library.
A common complaint about a system such as this, is that you wind up with 10 or 20 small JS files, where 2 or 3 large JS files will perform better from a networking point of view.
However, both rails and ASP.NET have features which handle combining and caching multiple JS files into one or more 'super' js files for production situations.
I'd recommend using features like this rather than compromising the quality/readability of the actual source code.
Yahoo!'s Exceptional Performance Team has some great performance suggestions for JavaScript. Steve Souders used to be on that team (he's now at Google) and he's written some interesting tools that can help you decide where to put JavaScript.
I try to avoid putting javascript functions on the rendered page. In general, I have an application.js (or root.js) that has generic functionality like menu manipulation. If a given page has specific javascript functionality, I'll create a .js file to handle that code and mimic the dir structure on how to get to that file (also using the same name as the rendered file).
In other words, if the rendered page is in public/dir1/dir2/mypage.html, the js file would be in public/js/dir1/dir2/mypage.js. I've found this style works well for me, especially when doing templating on a site. I build the template engine to "autoload" my resources (css and js) by taking the request path and doing some checking for the css and js equivalents in the css and js directories on the root.
Personally, I try to include several Javascript files, sorted by module (like YUI does). But once in a while, when I'm writing essentially a one-liner, I'll put it on the page.
Best practice is probably to put it on Google's servers.
(Depends what you mean by "your" javascript though I suppose :)
This is something I've been wrestling with, too. I've ended up by using my back-end PHP script to intelligently build a list of required JS files based on the content requested by the user.
By organizing my JS files into a repository that contains multiple files organized by purpose (be they general use, focused for a single page, single section, etc) I can use the chain of events that builds the page on the back-end to selectively choose which JS files get included based on need (see example below).
This is after implementing my web app without giving this aspect of the code enough thought. Now, I should also add that the javascript I use enhances but does not form the foundation of my site. If you're using something like SproutCore or Ext I imagine the solution would be somewhat different.
Here's an example for a PHP-driven website:
If your site is divided into sections and one of those sections is calendar. The user navigates to "index.phhp?module=calendar&action=view". If the PHP code is class-based the routing algorithm instantiates the CalendarModule class which is based on 'Module' and has a virtual method 'getJavascript'. This will return those javascript classes that are required to perform the action 'view' on the 'calendar' module. It can also take into account any other special requirements and return js files for those as well. The rendering code can verify that there are no duplicates of js files when the javascript include list is built for the final page. So the getJavascript method returns an array like this
return array('prototype.js','mycalendar.js');
Note that this, or some form of this, is not a new idea. But it took me some time to think it important enough to go to the trouble.
If it's only a few hundred bytes or less, and doesn't need to be used anywhere else, I would probably inline it. The network overhead for another http request will likely outweigh any performance gains that you get by pulling it out of the page.
If it needs to be used in a few places, I would put the function(s) into a common external file, and call it from an inline script as needed.
If you are targeting an iphone, try to keep anything that you want cached under 25k.
No hard and fast rules really, every approach has pros and cons, would strongly recommend you check out the articles that can be found on yahoo's developer section, so you can make informed decisions on a case by case basis.