W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2013

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:59:14 +0000
To: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <CF04ABE3E6534AD2A869319D607F66BD@marcosc.com>



On Monday, 11 February 2013 at 16:25, John Kemp wrote:

> On 02/11/2013 11:11 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > If you are accustomed to
> > working with complicated APIs (e.g., you come from Java or
> > something), then you might just be wondering what all the whinging is
> > about… but if you come from, say, using buttery-smooth-API-silk like
> > JQuery, then you are probably feeling a bit cheated.
>  
>  
>  
> Sounds like an opportunity for someone who knows how to make a  
> "buttery-smooth-API-silk" API for IndexedDB, and hide the complexity of  
> the original API.  

As IndexedDB has shipped, probably only wrapper JS libraries can save it.   
> Who could then become an "invited expert" to the WG  
> and fix the specification... ;)
>  

Alex Russell is actually doing that with his DOMFuture proposal. Here is him trying to rework IndexedDB:  
https://github.com/slightlyoff/DOMFuture/tree/master/reworked_APIs/IndexedDB

I'm sure he can provide more details, but at least he is experimenting to see if by using the "promise pattern" things could be better.  

Refocusing, I raised this here because "the reformist" promised to make part of the purpose of the TAG an advocacy organisation for developers. As Alex stated, "There doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in the TAG about the corrosive effects of poor design and integration on the overall usability and health of the system." I believe the SysApps WG's APIs potentially fall into that category so I would like to formally request, with some urgency, that the TAG please take a look at those APIs before they proceed along the REC track.  

--  
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 16:59:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 February 2013 16:59:49 GMT