If at all possible, don't serve JavaScript libraries from PeopleSoft applications (dynamic PeopleCode). The best place to serve a JavaScript library is from a static file residing on the PeopleSoft web server. Many PeopleSoft developers, however, don't have access to their web server file systems. The next logical place to store a JavaScript library is in an HTML definition in app designer. This is where the PeopleTools developers store JavaScript libraries and, therefore, is the preferred location for small JavaScript libraries. Unfortunately, the maximum size of a PeopleTools 8.4x HTML definition is too small to fit a good JavaScript library like jQuery. Enter John and Derek. John and Derek both wrote about a workaround to this limitation. Rather than using HTML Definitions, these innovative developers used the message catalog to store their JavaScript libraries (jQuery, of course). Here are links to those blog posts:
Both of these posts provide an alternative for PeopleSoft developers that want to use a JavaScript library but don't have access to their PeopleSoft web servers' file structure. Building upon John's and Derek's approach, here are some ideas to help improve performance.
Packing/Minification/Raw
Based on Julien Lecomte's post Gzip Your Minified JavaScript Files, we can see that Dean Edwards's Packer algorithm produces the smallest compressed file. As Julien notes, however, the benefit of that smaller download is offset by a corresponding increase in execution/evaluation time. Julien points out that other compression techniques like Douglas Crockford's JSMin and Yahoo's YUI Compressor produce larger files that evaluate much faster. Therefore, when using JavaScript compression alone, you, as an analyst or developer, need to determine which method is appropriate for your implementation. Do you have low bandwidth connecting powerful computers to your PeopleSoft instance? If so, then maybe the Packer algorithm is more appropriate for you. If you have good bandwidth (or low bandwidth and low power client computers), then maybe you should consider JSMin or the YUI Compressor. Both of these compression techniques produce compressed text files that can be stored in a message catalog entry as described by John and Derek.
Caching
Browsers are designed to cache static, externally referenced resources. The methods demonstrated in the previously mentioned blogs insert the contents of a JavaScript library into the body of an HTML page. By inserting the contents directly into a page, the browser is not able to cache it with other JavaScripts, stylesheets, and images. An alternative approach is to serve JavaScript libraries stored as message catalog entries from IScripts. Using this approach, you could reference your JavaScript library using HTML like:
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="/psc/portal/EMPLOYEE/EMPL/s/WEBLIB_JS_LIBS.ISCRIPT1.FieldFormula.IScript_jQuery">
</script>
The PeopleCode for this IScript would look something like:
Function IScript_jQuery()
Local string &jq = MsgGetExplainText(28000, 1, "alert('Unable to load the jQuery JavaScript library!\n\nThe Message Catalog entry (28000, 1) does not exist.');");
%Response.SetHeader("Cache-Control", "max-age=28800, proxy-revalidate");
%Response.WriteLine(&jq);
End-Function;
Update November 23, 2009: PeopleSoft actually overwrites the Cache-Control header. I have not found a way to set this through an IScript. The only solution I have found to cache IScript content is to use a ServletFilter to set the Cache-Control header after PeopleSoft returns a response.
The benefit of this approach is that users only download the JavaScript library once, rather than once per page visit. Considering cache, file size is not as important as execution time. Because the Packer algorithm produces a smaller file size, it excels in low bandwidth scenarios. With caching, however, the one time bandwidth hit might not compensate for the on going evaluation cost of the Packer algorithm. If you cache your JavaScript library, then a minification algorithm like JSMin or YUI Compressor may provide better performance.
GZip Compression
The first column of stats on Julien Lecomte's matrix compares the size of jQuery when packed, minified, or YUI Compressed. The second column compares that same content GZip compressed. GZip compressed, all three JavaScript compression methods result in a fairly comparable download size. When GZipped, the main difference between JSMin/YUI and Packer is the browser evaluation time required to "unpack" the packed JavaScript library.
The next performance improvement to explore with our IScript scenario is GZip compression. Fortunately, PeopleSoft takes care of GZip compression for us. If you look at your Web Profile settings, you will notice a check box labeled Compress Responses. If you enable this setting, PeopleSoft will automatically GZip compress the contents of your IScripts (and the contents of any other PeopleSoft page).
Whatever approach you take, be sure to consider security. OWASP listed Injection flaws as the Number 2 security concern in the OWASP 2007 top 10. Injection isn't limited to SQL. If you take user entered values and insert them into the HTML of a page, unescaped, then you have given that user the ability to inject malicious content into a page. If you use a message catalog approach and insert the contents of a message catalog entry into a page, then be sure to secure your message catalog. Failure to do so could have the same impact as the number one security threat in the OWASP 2007 Top 10: Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
