- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:07:08 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > One thing I'd like to see is some reconciliation between the SQL API and > the Storage interface. These are two completely separate storage > mechanisms with different security policies, different access APIs (SQL > queries vs. simple key/value pairs), and separate storage. I'm wondering > if the spec really needs both. I have massively simplified the globalStorage stuff in order to reduce the problem of having both. However, I do think we do need both. Indeed, especially for sessionStorage, I would expect them to be used in conjunction (e.g. to create a session key for client-side work). > Conversely maybe something can be done to make them integrate better, > perhaps the Storage items appear as a table via the SQL API, in which > case most of the Storage calls are just a convenience interface, but you > can still do queries on the same data. In this case, it might make sense > to move the executeSql method to the Storage interface. I believe this would actually constrain implementors (possibly a lot) without really helping authors much. (I will reply to the other parts of your e-mail as appropriate later.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 18:07:08 UTC