

CDN-hosted JavaScript Represents an Additional Point of Failure - lerouxb
http://daemon.co.za/2014/03/from-trenches-js-cdn-point-of-failure/

======
cyberpanther
Also hosting static files is probably the easiest thing to do with your web
app. So why introduce another point of failure for something really easy? You
may save a few milliseconds but definitely not worth it in my opinion. I'd
rather have better control and if you really want to speed things up then
combine and minify all your static assets.

~~~
lerouxb
Yeah chances are you're already running a static webserver of some kind
anyway. Typically at least apache or nginx proxying things to your app.

------
clintonb
I agree that a CDN introduces a potential point of failure. Another reason I
host locally is that I compress and minify my CSS and JS into single files
(e.g. application.js and application.css in Rails).

------
x13
Everything but the most well thought-out app is itself a SPOF.

1\. design and develop solutions appropriate for your audience; consider their
location, access to the network, and possible speed or lack thereof.

2\. I love using professionally managed SLA-backed CDN's - like Akamai. A
browser can only load so many items from the same host at one time, so I've
found using a CDN helps, given my usage scenario. (see above)

~~~
AdrianRossouw
yeah, using a professionally managed CDN is fine. as long as you host
everything near each other.

I dont think hosting your vendor code on cndjs, and then your application code
from wherever you serve the rest of your static files, is wise.

------
lerouxb
> I also feel that if more people understood that the internet is basically
> held together by duct tape, they would have a lot more reverence to the
> miracle that it works even remotely as reliably as it does.

The fact that the internet (and especially browsers) works at all is the main
wonder of our age.

