- From: Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa <w3c@hoa-project.net>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:43:07 +0200
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3c.org
Hi :-), Le 9/04/09 17:29, Giovanni Campagna a écrit : > 2009/4/9 Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu>: > >> Giovanni Campagna wrote: >> >>> So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind >>> of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)? >>> I mean something like >>> openDatabase(name, version, type, displayName, estimatedSize) >>> where type can be any string >>> so, for example, type = "sql" uses the standard SQL, type="sqlite" >>> uses SQLite extensions, type="-vendor-xyz" is a vendor specific >>> extension, etc. >>> >> How does this solve the original "no such thing as standard SQL, really" >> issue? >> > > We have a standard SQL, and we have DBMS-specific extensions (for > SQLite, for MySQL, for SQLServer, etc.). > The latest version is "ISO/IEC 9075:2008 Information technology -- > Database languages -- SQL", released in 2008, but actively being > revised, according to the ISO page. > As usual, if you want interoperability, you use the existing, > implemented, standard (or you ask the ISO to produce an updated > standard with new features), else you use extensions. > A Database Abstract Layer (DAL, i.e. a system that enables user to select the Relational Database Management System, RDMS, to use) is a good idea but it does not sound standard anymore. I mean: we are postponing the problem, because who, why and how will decide what RDMS must be implemented? What about XML based database? Best regards. -- Ivan Enderlin Developper of Hoa Framework http://hoa-project.net/
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 16:43:48 UTC