W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:45:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CABirCh8StFKF83J-=pQRhOGFnTh84Vg1X_PJGV_btQ1CUPc+Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: ifette@google.com
Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>wrote:

> I seem to recall we contemplated people writing libraries on top of IDB
> from the beginning. I'm not sure why this is a bad thing.

Expecting libraries providing higher-level abstractions is fine, but it's
bad if an API is inconvenient to use directly for common cases.  For
example, it's natural to expect people to use a game engine library
wrapping Canvas to write a game, but Canvas itself is easy to use directly
most of the time, for lots of use cases.

The only API on the platform that I regularly use which I honestly find
unreasonable to use without a wrapper of some kind is cookies, which is one
of the worst APIs we've got.  Other than that, I can't think of any web API
that I actually need a wrapper for.  This is very good, since it means
everyone else reading my code already understands the APIs I'm using.

We originally shipped "web sql" / sqlite, which was a familiar interface
> for many and relatively easy to use, but had a sufficiently large API
> surface area that no one felt they wanted to document the whole thing such
> that we could have an inter-operable standard. (Yes, I'm simplifying a bit.)

(Not to get sidetracked on this, but this seems oversimplified to the point
of being confusing.

As a result, we came up with an approach of "What are the fundamental
> primitives that we need?", spec'd that out, and shipped it. We had
> discussions at the time that we expected library authors to produce
> abstraction layers that made IDB easier to use, as the "fundamental
> primitives" approach was not necessarily intended to produce an API that
> was as straightforward and easy to use as what we were trying to replace.
> If that's now what is happening, that seems like a good thing, not a
> failure.

It's fine to not try to be as simple to use as localStorage.  That's not an
attainable goal; it's not a database in any practical sense and never tried
to be.

But if we've added a new API to the platform that typical developers
wouldn't want to use directly without any wrapper library, we've made an

Glenn Maynard
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 23:46:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:59 UTC