Cdnjs - the missing cdn

What's the policy on previous versions of libraries?<p>I noticed, for example, that only the latest version (3.1) of the jQuery plugin Nivo Slider is available. The last versions (&#60;= 3.0.1) are returning 404s.<p>Given that the previous version was released in May 2012 that's an <i>insanely</i> fast deprecation policy for a CDN.<p>I have to guess that either I've stumbled upon a bug or minor oversight in this case, because I can't see how removing old versions that quickly would be at all a workable solution for 99% of use cases...

"This page (<a href="http://cdnjs.com/" rel="nofollow">http://cdnjs.com/</a>) is currently offline. However, because the site uses CloudFlare's Always Online™ technology you can continue to surf a snapshot of the site."<p>Well, that's hardly comforting.

I always prefer compiling and gzipping the whole site's assets to just one .js and one .css file and serve them through CloudFront. It's usually around 100-200 KB and CloudFront's latency is very low at most places.<p>This saves a lot of requests and waiting time between page loads (i.e. the first page is always slower, but subsequent page loads take almost no time because there're very few (or even just 1) requests needed to make.)

Who pays for this ? How do I know you're not going to replace some of that javascript with malicious content ?

What do providers get for access to these type of files? Can they capitalize on the information gathered from file requests? Adding to their knowledge of traffic patterns etc...

and here is the other 'missing' cdn that does the same thing and has been around longer:<p><a href="http://cachedcommons.org/" rel="nofollow">http://cachedcommons.org/</a><p>:)

That's pretty awesome! I've always wondered why popular css grids weren't also CDN'd. Bootstrap, 960, etc, etc - it makes great sense to have many of these things cached across 100s of sites 1 time - instead of 100 times. Modify the cdn version in a seperate style sheet afterwards.

I suppose if you have a big trust issue letting Cdnjs host your libraries or if you have a customized build of one, you could just do what they did and sign up for CloudFlare and control the files yourself. [edit: CloudFlare, not Cloudfront]

Ok, I'm not a developer and I'm probably missing the big picture or smth; my question: - All this fuss is about hosting a few text files none bigger than several KB??<p>Who in this world does NOT afford to host a few small files nowadays?

What about old versions? Taking the jQuery url, and changing it to the version previous to the newest release (1.7.2), 404s on me. This is a showstopper.<p><a href="http://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.0/jquery-1.8.0.min.js" rel="nofollow">http://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.0/jquery-1....</a> - ok<p><a href="http://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery-1.7.2.min.js" rel="nofollow">http://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery-1....</a> - 404

Looks really useful at serving the stuff that you can't find anywhere else (and for whatever reason don't want to host yourself), but IMO it really needs a TOS / license - I'm guessing that I can use it on personal sites, but can I use it on commercial sites, can I use it on SaaS sites, or sell sites that use it, etc etc?

Front-end guy here, curious about CDN access on mobile - is it faster to serve one CSS and one JS minified file through a private CDN (like CloudFront), or use something like CDNJS to make concurrent CDN calls with many smaller files spread across a connection?

Hint: If you want to brag about your uptime ("100%") then you should monitor that with a HTTP-request and not an ICMP Ping.<p>The latter is rather deceptive because it's not actually testing service availability.

"This website is offline No cached version is available"<p>definitely missing ;)

MochiKit isn't listed: <a href="http://mochi.github.com/mochikit/download.html" rel="nofollow">http://mochi.github.com/mochikit/download.html</a>

I really thought this was going to be related to cjdns.<p><a href="https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns</a>

I like the simple new design. Everything that I need is there and nothing more. Huge improvement over the last design.

<a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2828516" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2828516</a>

Needs more wu.js<p><a href="http://fitzgen.github.com/wu.js/" rel="nofollow">http://fitzgen.github.com/wu.js/</a>

great CDN for all the stuff that you want that isn't on google or other CDN's.

For every one of these CDNs you use, chances that people with scriptblockers will use your site goes down.<p>When I see that a site tries to resolve scripts from 50 domains, for what should really just be static HTML, I generally leave.<p>So please. Don't use CDNs. If you want people to trust you, host your own damn stuff on your own domain.