W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Replacing WebSQL with a Relational Data Model.

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:37:40 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikLx_9x63rNNJM7qMhmu_MbuHr5fCW9P5Ur+66r@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps@w3.org
I appreciate the time taken to discuss this.

People who were in favour of an SQL interface would appreciate the power of
a relational data model, and the fact that we abstract the SQL syntax and
provide an abstract relational algebra would overcome the objections, giving
us the best of both worlds. An efficient native implementation with a clean
API.

So if there was an implementation that ran on top of IndexedDB, that would
be supported buy Mozilla and Microsoft, so that those of us who want a
direct link to SQLite can implement it that way.

I plan on implementing two version on on IndexedDB and one on WebSQL. So if
this API replaced WebSQL, then there would be a version on all major
browsers (due to the IndexedDB implementation) and it could become
standardised.

Then the superior performance of the SQLite version might persuade more
people to implement the standard that way?


Cheers,
Keean.


On 26 October 2010 15:27, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> Coming up with a join language for IndexedDB is far from the top of our
>>> priority queue at the moment.  If you're interested in doing some
>>> prototyping or speccing on your own in the mean time, I think that'd be very
>>> valuable.  But either way, I don't think we should spend much more time
>>> discussing this issue at this time.
>>>
>>
>> Chrome supports WebSQL, so someone at Google must have thought it was a
>> good idea. Do you have any idea who that was?  (I am assuming from your
>> email address that you are involved with Chrome?)
>>
>
> Let's not re-hash the WebSQLDatabase issue.  There are differing opinions
> even within Google, but the fact that Mozilla and Microsoft are not going to
> implement it (and, in my personal opinion, for good reasons) makes such
> discussion moot.
>
> If that answer doesn't satisfy you, please search the archives as this has
> been discussed a few times now.
>
> J
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:38:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT