PW 3.0.98 – New master + ProCache Buster

[ryan]

In this post we look at a new core version on the master branch, and a new version of ProCache that includes a browser-cache busting feature called Buster:

https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.98-procache-buster/

[Robin S]

Thanks for the new Buster feature!

Quote

Years ago, some proxy servers could be configured not to cache file assets with query strings. That made it preferable to have the version as part of the filename rather than the query string. But as far as I can tell, this is no longer the case and you are unlikely to ever run into such a situation any more.

I'm sure you're right here, but some popular performance rating tools such as GTmetrix will deduct points for query strings on static assets, so that might be a reason to prefer filename versioning if clients will be evaluating the website with those tools.

 

[ryan]

Quote

I'm sure you're right here, but some popular performance rating tools such as GTmetrix will deduct points for query strings on static assets, so that might be a reason to prefer filename versioning if clients will be evaluating the website with those tools.

This is one reason why ProCache buster supports file.version.ext URLs as an option. But I wouldn't use that option if the reason is to accommodate a proxy server issue, which by all indications no longer exists. Use it if you prefer it for some other reason (maybe GTmetrix is a valid one). From what I understand, there was a version of a proxy server (Squid) that didn't cache query string assets due to a configuration issue that was fixed like 10 years ago or more. But mention of it ended up in some O'Reilly web optimization book around the same time, and so the issue took on a life of its own, and carries on due to tools continuing to look for it, even if apparently no longer relevant. Technically, query string is simpler and just slightly more efficient because no Apache rewrite rules have to get involved. 

[horst]

I really like that PC Buster serves different options! Until now, I use in my own scripts the ?{$fileTimestamp}, but have read about a versioning with .htaccess mod_rewrite here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/118884/how-to-force-browser-to-reload-cached-css-js-files

mod_rewrite on EVERY request and even page reloads for (how many files?) is a lot, whereas if it can get handled safely by the client browsers, it seems to be better for me.

I'm interested in getting more information about which option may or may not work in which situation.