- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 01:41:53 -0800
- To: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTikF+GDfr2Wg7+PC8y9KqDd96btTZRFHsiS5EgKH@mail.gmail.com>
Keean/Charles: I definitely think the more people involved the better, but let's not get too hung up on the specifics of PostgreSQL, BDB, etc. Our goal here should be to make a great API for web developers while balancing practical considerations like how difficult it'll be to implement and/or use efficiently. That said, I'm not understanding what your comments have to do with this proposal. Do you have specific concerns? J On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote: > Getting pgsql people involved sounds a great idea. Having some more people > to argue for formalised and standardised database APIs like SQL, and > experience with relational operations and optimisation would be good (That > is an assumption on my part, but then they are writing PostgreSQL not > CouchDB). Do you know some people you could invite? > > More generally though, I think BerkeleyDB would make a much better target > for IDB. I don't think it should be trying to be PostgreSQL or MySQL. I > think that implementing a good low-level API like BerkeleyDB that has enough > functionality to allow SQL to be implemented over the top. > > The problem with trying to implement IDB on top of PostgreSQL is that IDB > has a very narrow interface, that does not support any of the powerful > features of pgsql. It would give you the worst of both. BDB would make a > much implementation. > > Far more sensible would be to target the feature set of BDB for IDB, then > PostgreSQL could be re-implemented in JavaSctipt on top. (a massive and > impractical task, but I am trying to express the relationship between high > level and low level database APIs). > > > If we wanted to go fully relational, and avoid the correctness problems > with string processing SQL commands, take a look at my relational library, > currently implemented on top of WebSQL but an IDB version is in the works: > https://github.com/keean/RelationalDB > > > Cheers, > Keean. > > > On 9 March 2011 04:10, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > >> On 3/8/2011 6:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto: >>> public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Keean Schupke >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:03 PM >>> >>> >> No objections here. >>> >> >>> >> Keean. >>> >> >>> >> On 8 March 2011 21:14, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc><jonas@sicking.cc>wrote: >>> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> > After thinking about it a bunch and talking to others, I'm actually >>> leaning >>> >> > towards both option A and B. Although this will be a little harder >>> for >>> >> > implementors, it seems like there are solid reasons why some users >>> would >>> >> > want to use A and solid reasons why others would want to use B. >>> >> > Any objections to us going that route? >>> >> Not from me. If I don't hear objections I'll write up a spec draft and >>> >> attach it here before committing to the spec. >>> >>> Option A is pretty well understood, I like that one. >>> >>> For option B, at some point we had a debate on whether when indexing an >>> array value we should consider it a single key value or we should unfold it >>> into multiple index records. The first option makes it very similar to A in >>> that an array is just a composite value (it is quite a bit more painful to >>> implement...), the second option is interesting in that allows for new >>> scenarios such as objects with an array for tags, where you want to look up >>> by tag (even after doing options A and B as currently defined, in order >>> support multiple tags you'd need a second store that keeps the tags + key >>> for the objects you want to tag). Is there any interest in that scenario? >>> >> >> Yes. Once we're settled on this, I'm going to send an email on that. >> :-) Option b won't get in the way of my proposal. >> >> J >> >> >> At some point, I really would like to get people from the PostgreSQL >> project involved with indexeddb. >> >> They have a wealth of experience to bring to the discussion. For the >> moment, like many "server-side" packages, they're at quite a distance from >> the w3. >> >> FWIW, pgsql is a perfectly valid 'host' for idb calls. >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 09:42:51 UTC