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

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 05:17:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:49 UTC