I just ran Chrome’s AUDIT feature in their developer tools, and I confess I don’t really understand it, but it does have this one suggestion that could be useful (or not!):
Enable gzip compression
Compressing the following resources with gzip could reduce their transfer size by about two thirds ( ~17.10KB ) :
/open-eSignFormsVaadin/vaadin/UIDL?windowName=main could save ~3.71KB
/open-eSignFormsVaadin/vaadin/UIDL?windowName=main could save ~130B
/open-eSignFormsVaadin/vaadin/UIDL?windowName=main could save ~3.48KB
/open-eSignFormsVaadin/vaadin/UIDL?windowName=main could save ~2.64KB
/open-eSignFormsVaadin/vaadin/UIDL?windowName=main could save ~130B
/open-eSignFormsVaadin/vaadin/UIDL?windowName=main could save ~3.64KB
/open-eSignFormsVaadin/vaadin/UIDL?windowName=main could save ~3.37KB
I presume it would be similar for most other apps.
It also suggested caching those URLs, so it’s clearly not the most accurate audit report as caching the UIDL would be bad.
As soon as the application is used over the Internet or a WAN, gzip is a win. I typically do it in Apache instead (used to be more efficient CPU-wise, not likely to be as much of an issue nowadays)
It seems that application/json is required for UIDL compression. Unfortunately, it’s hard to determine exactly how much benefit this is giving me versus the cost of compression, etc.