You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If you compare the encoded data for file assets that is sent encoded to JSON, we have a scenario where ~300kb file asset becomes a ~2MB json payload.
A good approach would be to create or use custom binary encoding formats to optimise for size. This would be perfectly backwards compatible with the current API we have in place.
More on this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49096721/json-transfer-vs-binary-transfer
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Problem
If you compare the encoded data for file assets that is sent encoded to JSON, we have a scenario where ~300kb file asset becomes a ~2MB json payload.
A good approach would be to create or use custom binary encoding formats to optimise for size. This would be perfectly backwards compatible with the current API we have in place.
More on this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49096721/json-transfer-vs-binary-transfer
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: