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

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

From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 00:53:04 +0000
To: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F108E2F6BA743C4696146F0B7111C26114069F@TK5EX14MBXC244.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:17 PM

>> 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.

The goal of IndexedDB has always been to enable things like RelationalDB and CouchDB to be built on top, while maintaining a reasonable level of functionality for those that wanted to use it directly. I really like the idea of thinking of RelationalDB as something that's built as a library on top of IndexedDB. Are there specific tweaks we can make to IndexedDB so it can be a good lower-layer for RelationalDB, such that RelationalDB could be built as a pure JavaScript library?

Thanks
-pablo
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:53:32 GMT

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