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

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

From: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 06:33:43 +0200
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <3E3BC361-67DC-49A7-A7BA-45E6C9F300E9@ronomon.com>
To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
On 06 Apr 2011, at 2:53 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:

> 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

1. Treat object values as opaque (necessary to avoid deserialization/serialization overhead, this is mandatory for storing anything over 50,000 objects on a device like an iPad or iPhone).
2. Enable indices to be modified at time of putting/deleting objects (index references provided by application at time of putObject/deleteObject call).
3. Provide a simpler, more powerful locking mechanism, opaque to IndexedDB, to provide finer-grained application-specific locking (i.e. have we just entered into a sync process with the master database).

If I may say so, it does seem odd that some would advocate the difficulties of speccing merely the interface of something like SQLite, and then advise others to suggest re-implementing it entirely. If there was a specific BTree API in the browser and a powerful asynchronous sLocalStorage mechanism this might be something for the brave, but IndexedDB is a little too tightly coupled to it's own interface agenda at the moment to make this goal possible.
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 04:34:15 GMT

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