Re: Replacing WebSQL with a Relational Data Model.

Are you interested in my progress, posting updates with the API for
comments?

Cheers,
Keean.


On 26 October 2010 16:06, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:

> WebSQLDatabase is essentially deprecated, so it's not worth looking at
> things in that context.  And I don't think anyone's interested in adding yet
> another storage mechanism to the web platform.  And thus that leave just
> IndexedDB.
>
> But, as Art and I said, right now is probably not the right time to talk
> about it in reference to IndexedDB.  So if you'd like to work on your own to
> prototype something in the mean time, that'd be great and useful, but
> discussing this further really isn't.
>
> J
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
>
>> >So, if you *did* specify an API, and it *was* possible to implement that
>> by "just" using SQLite, you would have
>> >provided a spec that defines what SQLite does. That would be a good
>> thing, but I think it'll be tricky to do.
>>
>> Okay with the relational algebra I am proposing, the specification would
>> be relational algebra, nothing to do with the SQL database.
>>
>> The SQL database is simply a backend to implement the relational algebra,
>> just like I am proposing a reference implementation on top of IndexedDB.
>>
>> So I have no need to explain anything about SQLite, MySQL etc, because the
>> query and the response is _completely_ defined by the relational algebra.
>>
>> So the specification only references the well known mathematical
>> definition of relational agebra. How that is mapped to the database is an
>> implementation issue.
>>
>> We can say with certainty that _all_ compliant implementations should
>> return exactly the same data if they start from the same state and execure
>> the same relational statements. Some backends may take longer to execute the
>> instructions though, just like some JavaScript interpreters are faster than
>> others.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Keean.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 October 2010 15:53, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26.10.2010 16:37, Keean Schupke wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Then the superior performance of the SQLite version might persuade more
>>>> people to implement the standard that way?
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you really need to go through the mailing list archives to
>>> understand the problems with SQLite. It's not about the *quality* of that
>>> engine, but the fact that it's not sufficient as a specification.
>>>
>>> So, if you *did* specify an API, and it *was* possible to implement that
>>> by "just" using SQLite, you would have provided a spec that defines what
>>> SQLite does. That would be a good thing, but I think it'll be tricky to do.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Julian (knowing little about databases)
>>>
>>
>>
>