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: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:30:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOK8ODiJOBBx29UX5PNgN_=4=CZEBuaj6VMHvxN54oxLuS6rnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Todd Blanchard <toddvblanchard@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> The Webapps group will continue to try and reach industry agreement on
> ways to handle data storage for offline applications. Help is appreciated.
> Trying to help is generally appreciated too.
>
A slight tangent, but coming from WebGL where we're dealing with a lot of
binary data, the inability of WebSQL and IndexedDB to deal with Array
Buffers is quite an obstacle. The File storage API however isn't supported
anywhere but Chrome. I don't think it's mandatory for a query based API to
also support binary blobs. Traditionally this has often been solved in
similar situations by storing keys (paths) to an appropriate provider of
binary storage (such as a filesystem). Similar uses could be made if
browsers supported both a query based DB and a filesystem like API for
lookups by key/value.

On a related note, key/value backing stores might not be terribly fancy
compared to query based backing stores. But a surprising number of data
modelling problems does not neatly fit into relational logic well (usually
graphs, see also the popularity of key/value backing stores and the whole
NoSQL stuff). So for me a query based backing store would be nice to have.
But a good key/value backing store with the ability to store binary isn't
really optional.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 12:31:00 GMT

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