I had an idea on how to vastly speed up my website and ease the load on my server for cached objects, but I'm wondering if this is an extremely stupid idea before I spend all day thinking about it! Hear me out -
The localStorage object has a minimum of 2.5 MB (in Chrome, more here) which is good enough for most small sites. Which is why I am wondering - for small, static websites, would it be a good idea to basically save the entire site in a huge localStorage file and basically load the site from the visitor's own computer each time? To better explain my idea, here's some pseudo-code:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<!--other head information-->
</head>
<body>
<script>
if (localStorage.getItem('cached_site')!=null) {
document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].remove();
document.documentElement.innerHTML = localStorage.getItem('cached_site');
//Somehow stop loading the rest of the site (ajax?)
}
else {
//set localStorage var to the source code of the site.
//**This will be fleshed out to data/base64 all image resources as well**
localStorage.setItem('cached_site',document.documentElement.innerHTML);
//load the site as normal
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
This will save the contents of the body
in a localStorage file called cached_site
. There are some issues with the logic (like the "stop loading the site" part) but you get the idea.
Is this worth it? Potentially, requests could be completely cut from static content because it's all being loaded onto the user's computer. In order to update the content, maybe another value, perhaps a version number could be saved and checked in the else
block.
My webhost limits the amount of requests I can get per day, which is why I thought of this. It's not a huge deal, but an interesting project nonetheless.