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

Re: Replacing WebSQL with a Relational Data Model.

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:06:14 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikzuGwfynPGWYjUat-GHN8ot9ip7tRKHw3pWKPM@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps@w3.org
WebSQLDatabase is essentially deprecated, so it's not worth looking at
things in that context.  And I don't think anyone's interested in adding yet
another storage mechanism to the web platform.  And thus that leave just
IndexedDB.

But, as Art and I said, right now is probably not the right time to talk
about it in reference to IndexedDB.  So if you'd like to work on your own to
prototype something in the mean time, that'd be great and useful, but
discussing this further really isn't.

J

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:

> >So, if you *did* specify an API, and it *was* possible to implement that
> by "just" using SQLite, you would have
> >provided a spec that defines what SQLite does. That would be a good thing,
> but I think it'll be tricky to do.
>
> Okay with the relational algebra I am proposing, the specification would be
> relational algebra, nothing to do with the SQL database.
>
> The SQL database is simply a backend to implement the relational algebra,
> just like I am proposing a reference implementation on top of IndexedDB.
>
> So I have no need to explain anything about SQLite, MySQL etc, because the
> query and the response is _completely_ defined by the relational algebra.
>
> So the specification only references the well known mathematical definition
> of relational agebra. How that is mapped to the database is an
> implementation issue.
>
> We can say with certainty that _all_ compliant implementations should
> return exactly the same data if they start from the same state and execure
> the same relational statements. Some backends may take longer to execute the
> instructions though, just like some JavaScript interpreters are faster than
> others.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Keean.
>
>
>
>
> On 26 October 2010 15:53, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 26.10.2010 16:37, Keean Schupke wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Then the superior performance of the SQLite version might persuade more
>>> people to implement the standard that way?
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> I think you really need to go through the mailing list archives to
>> understand the problems with SQLite. It's not about the *quality* of that
>> engine, but the fact that it's not sufficient as a specification.
>>
>> So, if you *did* specify an API, and it *was* possible to implement that
>> by "just" using SQLite, you would have provided a spec that defines what
>> SQLite does. That would be a good thing, but I think it'll be tricky to do.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian (knowing little about databases)
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 15:07:05 GMT

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