Bundling and Minificationhttp://asp.netMon, 03 Sep 2012 10:54:47 GMTumbracoComments for Bundling and MinificationenComment Posted by fogjuicehttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationThu, 14 Jun 2012 16:57:38 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015766Rick, you create great readable and interesting tutorials. Thanks!

]]>Comment Posted by prithvi_be@yahoo.comhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationThu, 14 Jun 2012 17:19:29 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015767Nice tutorial. Thanks

]]>Comment Posted by alexdreskohttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationThu, 14 Jun 2012 17:58:16 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015768Do bundle names have to look contain the path for which the included files are contained? For example... new StyleBundle("~/Content/themes/base/css"). Is there a reason you specified "~/Content/themes/base/css" for the name? If not, that's VERY confusing. It makes it look like "~/Content/themes/base/css" is somehow important to the name of the bookmark. It's also very ugly because it duplicates the same path that is repeated multiple times in the .Include(...) call.

]]>Comment Posted by alexdreskohttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationThu, 14 Jun 2012 18:00:49 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015769Also, I don't fully understand how the Script/Style.Render methods could be involved with a routing conflict yet, but it seems like I should just be able to do something like Script.Render("jQuery") and have it render my jQuery bundle. No paths or conventions necessary there.

]]>Comment Posted by Taritsynhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationFri, 15 Jun 2012 04:06:08 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015773I recommend to try Bundle Transformer (bundletransformer.codeplex.com) - a modular extension for the product described above (Microsoft ASP.NET Web Optimization Framework). It supports translation of code on intermediate languages (LESS, Sass, SCSS and CoffeeScript). In addition to it, there are minifier-adapters based on Microsoft Ajax Minifier, YUI Compressor for .NET, Google Closure Compiler and Douglas Crockford JSMin.

]]>Comment Posted by jnappihttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationFri, 15 Jun 2012 16:48:38 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015780Maybe I'm stating the obvious or missing something but bundling doesn't seem to be compatible with using cookieless domains or CDN. If my www.mydomain.com has javascript files on js.mydomain.com, then I can't really bundle them.

]]>Comment Posted by ricka6http://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationFri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:06 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015781alexdresko: Do bundle names have to look contain the path for which the included files - The reason the CSS path needs to be the same is due to the CSS containing relative paths. It won’t work if the location of the bundle is different from the actual CSS files in this case.

alexdresko: Script/Style.Render

The Render helpers are URL render helpers and they are not limited to bundles -

Scripts.Render(“jquery”) would turn into yourhost.com/

We only are able to resolve it to be a bundle if you pass in the effective bundle url (~/<bundlepath>)

fogjuice & prithvi_be@yahoo.com : Thanks, I'm glad you found it useful.

]]>Comment Posted by ricka6http://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationFri, 15 Jun 2012 19:00:59 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015782Taritsyn - I recommend to try Bundle Transformer (bundletransformer.codeplex.com) - Thanks for posting this.

jnappi - bundling doesn't seem to be compatible with using cookieless domains or CDN.

Correct. We are considering bundling jQuery and other assets on our CDN in the future.

]]>Comment Posted by alexdreskohttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationSun, 17 Jun 2012 20:36:32 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015793I think your answer to my questions was just about as cryptic as my questions. :) I think more needs to be done to explain how bundling/minification works, as well as the API behind it. Last I checked, documentation on MSDN wasn't quite where it needs to be related to this stuff.

]]>Comment Posted by ARJindalhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationMon, 25 Jun 2012 13:56:14 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015844It also ignore the files that ends with .debug-

public void AddDefaultIgnorePatterns()

{

this.IgnoreList.Ignore("*.intellisense.js");

this.IgnoreList.Ignore("*-vsdoc.js");

this.IgnoreList.Ignore("*.debug.js");

}

This creates problem with bundling knockout-2.1.0.debug.js , any option to overwrite this ignore list?

]]>Comment Posted by ricka6http://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationTue, 26 Jun 2012 20:53:21 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015861@ARJindal : This creates problem with bundling knockout-2.1.0.debug.js , Why do you want the debug version of knockout when you release. The released version will use knockout-2.1.0.js

]]>Comment Posted by ARJindalhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationWed, 27 Jun 2012 13:08:34 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015865@ricka6, It should be handle by the configuration, in debug configuration it should allow me to include .debug files also.

As quoted in this article itself - [ this means with a debug configuration, the file jquery-1.6.2.js will be added to the bundle. In a release configuration, jquery-1.6.2.min.js will be added.]

I agree that in release mode it should use knockout-2.1.0.js, but in debug mode it should bundle anything except .min, .intellisense and .vsdoc files.

]]>Comment Posted by ricka6http://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationWed, 27 Jun 2012 14:38:03 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015868@ARJindal - Thanks for point this out. It has been fixed for RTM. Right now rename

knockout-2.1.0.js --> knockout-2.1.0.min.js

knockout-2.1.0.debug.js --> knockout-2.1.0.js

]]>Comment Posted by techstyledhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationThu, 05 Jul 2012 20:20:55 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015926"bundling doesn't seem to be compatible with using cookieless domains or CDN"

All this great and wonderful work, that makes using best practices for web optimization better... and then they go and ignore 2 _very_ important web optimization best practices...

I guess we can hope for these to be implemented soon and just continue to roll our own until then...

Sad panda... so close to being so good but... nope, completely useless to me because I use both of these important optimization's.

]]>Comment Posted by ricka6http://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationMon, 09 Jul 2012 12:51:48 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015946Providing more robust CDN support is in the next batch of work that we’re planning right now. Thanks for the input.

]]>Comment Posted by Murk59http://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationWed, 18 Jul 2012 04:24:18 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000015998Is there any way to easily alter the rendered url(s) ?

I'd like to have a fully qualified url ("mysite.com/") in order to add a subdomain ("static.mysite.com/").

]]>Comment Posted by moattarworkhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationThu, 19 Jul 2012 06:23:09 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016010Quite fine article. Thank you for fine and precise explanation.

]]>Comment Posted by idofhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationSat, 21 Jul 2012 16:38:23 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016025I don't see a way to control the URL created when using Scripts.Render() to add server prefixes, such as CDN host names - the bundle url is always created as "/bundles/..." without the option to change it to "http://cdnserver/myapp/bundles/...".

]]>Comment Posted by ricka0http://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationMon, 23 Jul 2012 02:23:36 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016031@Murk59 -- Is there any way to easily alter the rendered url(s) ?

Yes - Use @Scripts.Url("your bundle") to create the URI (not all the markup including the script tag) - then you can modify the URI. The RTM version will have more features to support URI generation.

@idof CDN -- CDN's will be supported for RTM. I hope to update this article soon after RTM

]]>Comment Posted by johnny_reillyhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationThu, 16 Aug 2012 06:40:32 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016185Hi Rick,

Great stuff - can we use this with MVC 3 / ASP.NET 4.0?

I'm guessing the answer is yes with this: nuget.org/

? Hope so!

]]>Comment Posted by dirqhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationMon, 20 Aug 2012 08:57:32 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016221Is there a way to automatically minify and combine generated ScriptResource.axd files?

]]>Comment Posted by silverCOREhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationMon, 27 Aug 2012 14:29:16 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016302Hi Rick.

Thanks for the article, certainly extensive. I feel it'd be great to add the following to your post:

#1. Convention "Selecting the non “.min” version for debug.". That should read "On debug, any .min.js will by default be ignored and not bundled". caused me headaches trying to figure this out.

]]>Comment Posted by silverCOREhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationMon, 27 Aug 2012 14:29:37 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016303#2. "Bundles should be partitioned by pages that need them". That should read MUST be partitioned, when talking about css bundles, per this scenario:

www.deliveron.com/

]]>Comment Posted by dazwilkinhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationTue, 28 Aug 2012 15:32:02 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016332I tend to have a bundle of (shared) JavaScript library files and then (HTML) page-specific JavaScript files. Clearly the shared library files get bundles/minified but it seems overkill to create a bundle for each of the page-specific JavaScript files solely to get them minified. Am I missing something or is this the best practice?

]]>Comment Posted by corydeppenhttp://asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minificationMon, 03 Sep 2012 10:54:47 GMT00000000-0000-0000-0000000016371I think the docs really need to be rewritten in places where you make it look completely acceptable to define bundles with random relative paths (e.g. new ScriptBundle("~/bundles/jquery")). While it works, it's far from a best practice, considering any relative paths in CSS will fail if the bundle doesn't maintain the same structure. I think it would be better to just mention that the relative path to bundles should always match the relative path to those resources. Consistency goes a long way.

]]>