- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:20:19 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/6/11 10:30 AM, Joran Greef wrote: >> >> If Mozilla enjoys using the latest version of SQLite (and I assume they >> are not planning on replacing internal SQLite embeddings with IndexedDB - >> not at this stage at least), then web developers deserve the latest version. > > This is not obvious a priori, for what it's worth. > > Mozilla also enjoys using self-modifying machine code [1], for example. Yet > we have no plans to expose that capability directly to the web. > >> Ship the latest version of SQLite (even with the -moz prefix). > > In case this was not clear, we think that this would be actively bad for the > web, not least by increasing the barrier to entry into the web space for new > browsers. For what it's worth, this thread is very much going in circles. I've listed several reasons why I'm not supporting shipping WebSQL in Firefox. Nothing in this thread has persuaded me otherwise. In particular some sort of "competition" between IndexedDB and WebSQL doesn't change that in the least. Further, there have have been claims of various blockers for implementing something like RelationalDB or even WebSQL on top of IndexedDB. So far these claims are unsubstantiated. I really don't think this thread is going to go much further than this. I'd love for someone to implement a higher-level API on top of IndexedDB. This will help us find shortcomes in the API, and bottlenecks in the implementation. But until someone actually does that, all we have is unsubstantiated guesses. Others should feel free to continue this thread, but I doubt I will. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 18:21:17 UTC