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: Miko Nieminen <miko.nieminen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:39:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPp4HtCdx5mJeFnF1hB7HHcE7a3P2PASXRc7vXXmS_fTxt0sEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, www-tag@w3.org
2013/2/11 Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>

> On Monday, 11 February 2013 at 20:44, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > IndexedDB is an API for that kind of work scoped to the needs of DBMS
> > engines that aren't necessarily so called SQL RDBMS variants. For folks
> > that write the kind of drivers outlined above, it looks fine.
> >
> >
> Sure, but I thought these APIs were made for "Web Developers" and not the
> niche group of people who write database drivers. I'm trying to track down
> the statistics about Web developers (education attainment, etc. I know
> there are some stats somewhere, so if anyone has a pointer...). I imagine
> most, like me, do not hold a degree in computer science or software
> engineering (if they hold a degree at all!). That's not too say we are less
> capable than people that do, but we are skilled in different areas.
I think IndexedDB is almost good enough for writing all kinds of
abstractions and reusable libraries on top of it. Only major issue I'm
having is the lack of ability to listen add, modify, delete events through
object store. This makes writing additional abstractions unnecessarily
painful when keeping things in-sync requires routing notifications through
local storage or other similar mechanism.

So to raise my original question: what do you think, do I have any
realistic chances to get forward with this change?

Miko Nieminen
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:39:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:19 UTC