W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Starting work on Indexed DB v2 spec - feedback wanted

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:22:26 -0700
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Cc:
Message-id: <m2wqe82dy5.fsf@il0204a-dhcp63.apple.com>
Hi,

Tim wrote:

> Personally, the main thing I want to see is expose simpler and lower
> level APIs. For my uses (backend to git server), the leveldb API is
> plenty powerful[…] Would it make sense to standardize on a simpler set
> of APIs similar to what levelDB offers and expose that in addition to
> what indexedDB currently exposes? Or would this make sense as a new
> API apart from IDB?

I think it would be a mistake to grow the existing IndexedDB API to be
more "LevelDB-y".

Keep in mind that some IndexedDB implementations are built on top of
LevelDB. We don't want to repeat the mistake of Web SQL Database, where
the Web-exposed API surface depended on the UA using a particular
version of SQLite as its backend.

Also, one of the goals of the IndexedDB API was to provide a substrate
on which database APIs could be built. Like Joshua wrote:

> You may want to try prototyping this on top of Indexed DB as a
> library, and see what others think.

Apparently this already exists:

> The level / node.js community already build a prototype on top of IDB
> ( https://github.com/maxogden/level.js )

We should certainly ensure that the IndexedDB API is rich enough to let
many such libraries be built on top of it. We should avoid changing it
in ways that favor a particular backend implementation strategy.


Ted
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 18:22:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:24 UTC