Re: Web Storage & SQL

On 4/10/09 1:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I don't think this one point should be decisive by itself. But I don't
> think it should be given zero weight either. I do think the existence of
> an implementation of the current spec and Web content using it somewhat
> raises the burden of proof on anyone proposing a redesign.
I'm not so sure of the usefulness of that argument.  Just because 
company X implements and proposes feature Y, and convinces company Z to 
implement it on their site, it doesn't somehow get extra credibility 
(strictly a hypothetical situation).  If there are serious issues with 
the proposal, they should be looked at and not glossed over.  For what 
I've seen of this discussion, serious issues that are being raised are 
being glossed over or being dismissed as essentially "not our problem".

> Note that one of the clients in question is the offline-enabled mobile
> version of GMail. I think this demonstrates that the SQL-based Database
> Storage can serve the needs of an advanced and polished Web application.
> In addition, we have a rough demonstration that it is practically
> implementable in a modern Web engine.
Just because an API serves the needs of an advanced and polished web 
application doesn't mean it's the right API.  We could let web authors 
write some form of assembly to do task X, and they could make it serve 
their needs, but it most certainly would not be the right API.  An 
exaggeration, sure, but this is an API we are going to have to live with 
for a long time.  We should take care to ensure that it's the right API 
for the web.

My biggest problem with this draft is that I still don't see an answer 
for why SQL was chosen, especially given the drawbacks that have already 
been highlighted.

Cheers,

Shawn