W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: Two years on and still no sensible web storage solutions exist

From: Todd Blanchard <toddvblanchard@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:45:08 -0800
Cc: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C9FC85D7-E8DA-4D9F-A16B-8EDB61774407@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
Don't care if it is SQLite so long as it is a real relational database.  IndexedDB or some other key-value store is no substitute for the power of a relational database and is unlikely to be performant given the number of different views we support.  I don't mind too much if IE used mssql, Firefox settled on mysql, or postgresql or anything else so long as it is a proper relational database - switching sql dialects is already a fact of life.

I've settled on using SQLite on smart phones (Android and iOS - we will not support phones lacking this capability) and I'm going to just rely on calls to the server for desktop apps.  I think fetching from the server will be no worse for the average desktop user than iterating a key-value store trying to calculate joins in javascript.  

-Todd Blanchard

On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Andrew Wilson wrote:

> My recollection is that some vendors refused to ever support SQLite, making a SQL-based standard not really feasible. You can undoubtedly review the w3c archives to find out more details if you want to know the rationale they expressed at the time.
> 
> It's unfortunate that IndexedDB is still not widely supported by browsers - I share your frustration. However, as you say, you can write to the IndexedDB APIs, and use a shim to get support on platforms that do not support it yet.
> 
> -atw
> 
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 09:45:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:56 GMT