W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Web Data APIs

From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:22:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4AF03CAE.5020206@sitepen.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hash: SHA1
FWIW, in the server side JavaScript realm, there has been growing
interest in following the WebSimpleDB API as an generic API for
interchangeable data storage systems, to provide a consistent
interface for interacting with various DBs like MongoDB, JavaScriptDB,
CouchDB, and even to some degree relational DBs (of course most DBs
provide additional DB-specific funcionality). We are closely following
the development of this API, since this is such an important part of
JavaScript applications on the server, but I am in support of what I
see so far.

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Pablo Castro
> <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> We’ve been looking at the web database space here at Microsoft, trying to
>> understand scenarios and requirements. After assessing what was out
there we
>> are forming an opinion around this. I wanted to write to this group to
>> how we think about the space, what principles we try to apply, and to
>> discuss specifics.
>> The short story is that we believe Nikunj’s WebSimpleDB proposal, which
>> basically describes a minimum-bar web database API and enables a whole set
>> of diverse options to be built on top, is the right thing to do.
>> During the last couple of weeks we have been talking with various
folks from
>> Mozilla and Oracle and iterating over details of the WebSimpleDB draft. In
>> the process it has become clear that we all share the same high-level
>> expectations on the scope and capabilities of this API, and Nikunj has
>> hard at work making changes to the draft to keep up with them. I’ll
touch on
>> a few details below, but bear in mind that several of them are already in
>> the process of being addressed.
>> We would love to hear feedback, requirements, specific application
>> scenarios, etc. We want to make progress quickly and get experimental
>> implementations going to ensure that as we explore we stay grounded, with
>> things that are implementable.
> Hi Pablo,
> Sorry about the slow response.
> While there isn't such a thing as a official mozilla position, this
> very closely (scaringly so ;) ) matches the thinking of most people
> that have participated in the database discussions here. We've had
> conversations with both Oracle and Microsoft, as well as with both
> javascript developers and people that have worked with databases on
> the web, such as the CouchDB people.
> >From basically everywhere we've gotten the feedback that a low-level
> API in the style of WebSimpleDB is preferrable to the SQL based API in
> the WebDatabase drafts. The main argument we got for an SQL based API
> was "we don't care what we get, we just want something, though if we
> got to pick a SQL API is not what we'd pick".
> So our recommendation is to start with WebSimpleDB and iterate on
> that. The first thing we should do is to see where we can simplify
> things. For example foreign keys, queues and database versions seems
> like something that can probably be removed.
> We also got the feedback that something that's more event-based rather
> than callback based was preferable (which came as a surprise to most
> of us). Personally I think this change isn't as urgent, but I do think
> it's something that should be fixed before implementations start to
> happen.
> As I'm reading the latest editor drafts I see that some of these
> changes have already been made, which is great to see. I need to
> review these changes more in detail, but in the meantime I wanted to
> let the WG know about what activities have been going on at mozilla.
> / Jonas

- --
Kris Zyp
(503) 806-1841
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 14:23:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:20 UTC