Why do we organize assets the way we do? It must be rooted in tradition.
Back when the internets were first getting started, and the world wide web was at version “1.0”, we just didn’t have that many .css or .js files to organize. So we put all our .css files in a public directory called “assets/css” and all our .js files in a public directory called “assets/js”, and we were done.
Yet most of us are still using the same traditional directory structure, grouping all of our assets by type of asset, even though that directory structure provides little-to-no value. Why don’t we leverage God’s gift of the directory a bit more effectively to put assets together that really belong together? For example, instead of having the “person” related assets spread out all over the place, why don’t we just put all of those assets into one directory?
It sure would be nice to be able to quickly switch between “person” files just by clicking on another file in the same directory! And what about assets that are used just by one particular page? Why don’t we put those assets in the same directory as the template for that page, since all those files are so closely related?
Nice thought, hard to materialize. The problem is that asset management has a lot of moving parts. A complete solution needs to address preprocessing (i.e. compiling .scss, .coffee, etc.), minification and concatenation in production mode, and of course, dependency management. Dependency management becomes a real pain in multi-page applications. Although there are partial solutions available, I am not aware of any existing solution that handles all of these issues and all three types of asset files (.js, .css, and templates).
But let’s not give up hope. In a perfect world, what would your ultimate asset manager look like? Here are some of the features we came up with.
What do you think? How would you manage your assets if you could snap your fingers and make it so?
There are several tools in this general space, some of them look confusingly similar.
GruntJS is a build tool that allows you to many automate repetitive tasks including preprocessing, minification and concatenation of assets. It is a heavy lifter but it is rather clumsy and brainless. It offers no easy way to select the appropriate assets to process for a given page, no dependency management, and, since it is just a build tool, no means to include assets into a page once they have been processed.
Bower is a package manager that fetches asset from online sources like GitHub, taking dependencies into account. It does not handle preprossing, minification, concatenation, or integration of assets into web applications. Bower is geared towards package management, or fetching assets, not building or serving them.
Component is similar to and competes directly with Bower, but also concatenates and serves .css and .js files. However there is no built in support for preprocessing assets, or switching between development and production environments. It also requires the use of its CommonJS implementation, and has poor support for multi-page applications.
Although these are powerful tools, they don't hit all the items on our wish list. We have built applications using Assetic with the directory structure outlined at the beginning of this post. The directory structure itself is very helpful, but there are several pain points (mentioned above) that get worse as your application scales. Developing a solution that works better for our needs is one of our priorities. We’d love to hear your feedback on what your ideal asset manager would look like. If you want to keep up to date on our findings and progress, get in touch.
Copyright © 2016, Progress Software Corporation and/or its subsidiaries or affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
Progress, Telerik, and certain product names used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Progress Software Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries. See Trademarks or appropriate markings.