W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:26:36 +0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTimw68oAMJ0CLrOqoqfXY27iC_00Qg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
This is ignoring the possibility that something like RelationalDB could be
used, where a well defined common subset of SQL can be used (and I use
well-defined in the formal sense). This would allow a relatively thin
wrapper on top of most SQL implementations and would allow SQLite (or BDB)
to be used as the backend.

As a seasoned C++ programmer, I could even write a Firefox plugin using
XPCOM as a reference implementation using the same API as the JavaScript
RelationalDB implementation on my GitHub. Although I am not keen on putting
in the time to do this if nobody is interested.

To me is seems this thread is going in circles. RelationalDB does not have
the standardisation problem that WebSQL has, but is still a relatively thin
API layer that can be implemented over the top of a fast and well tested SQL
implementation. It is based on sound theory and research defining the
abstraction layer, and has a relationally complete API, so there should be
no need to change the core API in the development of a standard.


Cheers,
Keean.


On 4 April 2011 14:39, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Saturday, April 2, 2011, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com> wrote:
> >> I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of putting the
> >> responsibility of the health of the web in the hands of one project.
> >> In fact, one of the main reasons I started working at Mozilla was to
> >> prevent this.
> >>
> >> / Jonas
> >
> > I agree with you. All the more reason to support both WebSQL and
> IndexedDB. It is not a case of either/or. It would be healthy to have
> competing APIs.
>
> Competition might be a great thing. But it doesn't address the issue
> in the least. It would still be the case that some developers would
> choose to use WebSQL, and browser makers would still have to support
> it, including support the SQL dialect it uses.
>
> Hence it would still be the case that we would be relying on the
> SQLite developers to maintain a stable SQL interpretation to keep a
> healthy and functional web.
>
> / Jonas
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 15:27:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:44 GMT