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: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:17:01 +0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTik6kOGmmKxbK+VFwNPbtq3kOKf8iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 4 April 2011 22:55, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> > There are several reasons why we don't want to rely exclusively on
> > SQLite, other than solely W3C formalia.
> >
> > First of all, what should we do once the SQLite team releases a new
> > version which has some modifications in its SQL dialect? We generally
> > always need to embed the latest version of the library since it
> > contains critical bug fixes, however SQLite makes no guarantees that
> > it will always support exactly the same SQL statements. . . .
>
> These are good reasons, and I have no problem with them.  SQLite is
> designed with very different compatibility and security needs than the
> web platform has, and its performance goals might be different in some
> respects as well.  There are various ways that you could address this
> short of making up something completely different, but I'm not sure
> whether it would be a good idea.
>
> Anyway, I didn't intend to reignite this whole discussion.  The
> decision has been made, now we get to see what comes of it.
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com> wrote:
> > SQLite has a fantastic track record of maintaining backwards
> compatibility.
>
> SQLite does not face anything close to the compatibility requirements
> that web browsers face.  There are perhaps billions of independent web
> pages, which don't have any control over what browser versions they're
> being run in.  These pages are expected to work in all browsers even
> if they were written ten years ago and no one has looked at them
> since, and even if they were written incompetently.  Just because
> something has an excellent compatibility track record by the standards
> of application libraries doesn't mean it's compatible enough for the
> web.
>
>
Something like RelationalDB gives you the power of a relational-db with no
dependence on a specific implementation of SQL, so it would be compatible
enough for the web.  It fixes all the problems with the standardisation of
WebSQL that have been talked about so far.  I think it would find no
technical issues that block its standardisation.  As a high level DB API it
does not need all the low-level features of IndexedDB, so its API can be
much simpler and cleaner. RelationalDB can at least be provided as a library
on top of IndexedDB, and it can use WebSQL where it is supported. My concern
with the library approach is performance when implemented on top of
IndexedDB.


Cheers,
Keean.
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 05:17:31 GMT

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