W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Web Storage & SQL

From: Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa <@>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:43:07 +0200
Message-ID: <49DE259B.7060601@hoa-project.net>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3c.org
Hi :-),

Le 9/04/09 17:29, Giovanni Campagna a écrit :
> 2009/4/9 Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu>:
>> Giovanni Campagna wrote:
>>> So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
>>> of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
>>> I mean something like
>>> openDatabase(name, version, type, displayName, estimatedSize)
>>> where type can be any string
>>> so, for example, type = "sql" uses the standard SQL, type="sqlite"
>>> uses SQLite extensions, type="-vendor-xyz" is a vendor specific
>>> extension, etc.
>> How does this solve the original "no such thing as standard SQL, really"
>> issue?
> We have a standard SQL, and we have DBMS-specific extensions (for
> SQLite, for MySQL, for SQLServer, etc.).
> The latest version is "ISO/IEC 9075:2008 Information technology --
> Database languages -- SQL", released in 2008, but actively being
> revised, according to the ISO page.
> As usual, if you want interoperability, you use the existing,
> implemented, standard (or you ask the ISO to produce an updated
> standard with new features), else you use extensions.
A Database Abstract Layer (DAL, i.e. a system that enables user to select
the Relational Database Management System, RDMS, to use) is a good idea but
it does not sound standard anymore. I mean: we are postponing the problem,
because who, why and how will decide what RDMS must be implemented?
What about XML based database?

Best regards.

Ivan Enderlin
Developper of Hoa Framework
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 16:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 13:55:25 UTC