• @Aux
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      It doesn’t, but it defeats the purpose of CDN, because your users still hit your domain instead of CDN one and cannot leverage the benefits of distributed caching. Browser cache is bound to a URL, you change one letter and it is invalidated.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why would the URL change?

        It won’t share js libraries and fonts and whatnot cross-site but compared to a single image that should be negligible. At least if you don’t pull in gazillions of superfluous dependencies and don’t even run dead code elimination over them. And anyway that’s more bandwith usage between user and CDN, not user and you.

        Also I already said that it’s insanity. But it would work.

        • @Aux
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          Because you’re not using a CDN URL everyone else is.

          Savings are massive for the user. If you don’t care about your users, please stop doing anything development related.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            You know what’s faster than a CDN? Vanilla js.

            And how often do I have to repeat that it’s insanity? It’s just that user network traffic doesn’t even come close to the top of reasons why it’s a bad idea.

            • @Aux
              link
              English
              -21 year ago

              Insanity is what you have in your head.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I wasn’t the one advocating to outlaw cross-site everything. I only said that it could be made to work… not well, but still. Also that it’s a bad idea. Do you disagree with that?

                But yes I’m also insane how could you tell.