Re: Replacing WebSQL with a Relational Data Model.

All true, unless you want a relational data model. (and note a relational
data _model_ is not dependant on the backend, but some engines have many
man-years of work spent on them that I would not want to try and replicate).

I dont see what you mean by better, SQLite seems pretty good to me. I don't
see Google's Android team, or the iPhone dropping it any time soon. I
suspect that WebKit will be keeping WebSQL support.


Cheers,
Keean.


On 26 October 2010 20:54, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
> > Take Firefox for example, it implements IndexedDB using SQLite
> apparently.
> > So implementing a relational API if we have to talk to IndexedDB that
> means
> > we have to convert from the relational data model to an object model and
> > then back to a relational model for SQLite. So what I would like to do is
> > punch through that excess layer in the middle and have the relational API
> > talk directly to SQLite in the browser implementation. How could you
> argue
> > that having an unnecessary middle layer is a good thing?
>
> The SQLite back-end used by Firefox's implementation of IndexedDB (and
> Chrome's, for the moment) is unnecessary; at least in Chrome's case,
> we used a SQLite backend only because it was expedient and the code
> was there.  We'll be changing it to a better backend in the future,
> and I suspect that Firefox will do the same in time.
>
> The middle layer isn't unnecessary, *it's the whole point*.  The
> back-end shouldn't ever be exposed directly - you don't want your code
> to break if we drop the SQLite backend and switch to a direct
> b-tree-based backend.
>
> ~TJ
>