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
http://hoa-project.net/
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 16:43:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT