Request about fosjsroutingbundle HOT 6 CLOSED

Stoffel, the "routing?callback" approach is beneficial because during high-paced development this allows new routes to be available on the front-end without any further steps. Of course in production the routes do not change, and this additional look ends up being both network and resource costly, which is why this bundle has the ability to dump all your routes into a single static JS file for easy parsing. This can be done via the "app/console fos:js-routing:dump" command, which creates a single static JS file to be included immediately after you include router.js

So for development purposes having a slight delay is worth the price. For production, we dump the routes then use Assetic to combine the router.js and the static dump file (along with other relevant JS scripts) into a single minimised JS file which is cached aggressively and does not introduce any overheads in the live system. I suggest you look into this strategy as well - with or without Asseting, but at least dumping your routes into a separate file instead of relying on the over-the-wire AJAX load used in the dev environment.

from fosjsroutingbundle.

Eugene1g thx for your reply.

wouldn't it be helpful to solve this automatically? This is another step I would have to consider in my deployment process. Since you cannot presume users using assetic.

Also, I agree for development purposes you are right.

Kind Regards
Stoffel

from fosjsroutingbundle.

@DerStoffel How would you automate that?

from fosjsroutingbundle.

@willdurand Use a CompilerPass to generate the Cache.

from fosjsroutingbundle.

Well, that would be a CacheWarmer, not a CompilerPass.

from fosjsroutingbundle.

so, there is no real issue here, and no real feature request either, closing..

from fosjsroutingbundle.