# Using SnS - why use SnS file\_system extension

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-sns-why-use-sns-file-system-extension/157037>\
**Category:** Radiant CMS\
**Created:** [January 6, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-sns-why-use-sns-file-system-extension/157037 "2009-01-06T18:43:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nateless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/96bed5/32.png) [@nateless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/nateless)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-sns-why-use-sns-file-system-extension/157037/1 "2009-01-06T18:43:00Z")

</div>

I am using SnS to manage my css and js files and was wondering about the  
benefits of using the  
\*radiant-sns\_file\_system-extension[http://github.com/nelstrom/radiant-sns\_file\_system-extension/tree](http://github.com/nelstrom/radiant-sns_file_system-extension/tree).  
\*If using the extension speeds up accessing the css and js files and  
allows  
for better caching, why drop them to the file system?

This is my scenario as it is:  
Project is managed in git, and the application (radiant-generated and  
extension-generated) css and js files are under version control. The  
extra  
files, like sifr-config and jquery js files are in sns. I did this to  
keep  
frequently updated files (by the user) out of source control. That way I  
don’t end up pulling old js of css files if I need to do a pull.

For other people building their apps and using git (or svn) how do you  
manage your css and js files if not in a way similar to this?

Thanks,

~Nate

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nateless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/96bed5/32.png) [@nateless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/nateless)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-sns-why-use-sns-file-system-extension/157037/2 "2009-01-06T23:58:26Z")

</div>

On 6 Jan 2009, at 17:40, Nate T. wrote:

> I am using SnS to manage my css and js files and was wondering about  
> the  
> benefits of using the  
> \*radiant-sns\_file\_system-extension\<[http://github.com/nelstrom/radiant-sns\_file\_system-extension/tree](http://github.com/nelstrom/radiant-sns_file_system-extension/tree)
> 
> > .

> \*If using the extension speeds up accessing the css and js files and  
> allows  
> for better caching, why drop them to the file system?

If I understand correctly, the fastest way to serve your js and css  
files is straight from public/javascripts and public/stylesheets. Your  
webserver should serve these without even hitting the rails app (i.e.  
Radiant). The SnS extension[1](http://github.com/SwankInnovations/radiant-sns-extension/tree/master) is supposed to serve js and css files  
quicker than if you had created them as ‘pages’ in Radiant. Although  
I’m not sure if there are benchmarks to support this. With SnS, you  
can also package your text assets into a single js file and css file.  
Making fewer HTTP requests is a very good thing for performance, so  
this pro might outweigh the con of having to hit the rails app to  
serve it.

If you use the sns\_file\_system extension, it will make no difference  
at all to the performance of SnS. The only benefit is that you get to  
edit your Javascripts and Stylesheets (as well as Pages, Snippets and  
Layouts) from the comfort of your favourite text editor, rather than  
having to do everything through the Radiant admin interface. This is  
especially useful if you are building (or refactoring) a Radiant  
website. Once the site has launched, you can forget that the  
file\_system extension is there, and enjoy the convenience of the web  
interface for tweaks from anywhere in the www.

I hope that clears it up for you,

Drew