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

Re: Replacing WebSQL with a Relational Data Model.

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:54:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=nwKh4e6=CYioiCfhGmQFrVoiAtcVYSasUyBCo@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, public-webapps@w3.org, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
> Take Firefox for example, it implements IndexedDB using SQLite apparently.
> So implementing a relational API if we have to talk to IndexedDB that means
> we have to convert from the relational data model to an object model and
> then back to a relational model for SQLite. So what I would like to do is
> punch through that excess layer in the middle and have the relational API
> talk directly to SQLite in the browser implementation. How could you argue
> that having an unnecessary middle layer is a good thing?

The SQLite back-end used by Firefox's implementation of IndexedDB (and
Chrome's, for the moment) is unnecessary; at least in Chrome's case,
we used a SQLite backend only because it was expedient and the code
was there.  We'll be changing it to a better backend in the future,
and I suspect that Firefox will do the same in time.

The middle layer isn't unnecessary, *it's the whole point*.  The
back-end shouldn't ever be exposed directly - you don't want your code
to break if we drop the SQLite backend and switch to a direct
b-tree-based backend.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 19:55:25 GMT

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