- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:45:52 -0700
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > >> I have a question: why SQL was chosen as client side storage for Web >> Applications? >> > > Because it's what most app developers are already used to -- the M in the > widely used traditional LAMP stack is SQL. > > "most app developers are already used to" ... do what? Storing text and other variable length data in flat tables? Where did you find such developers? I understand need of SQL DB on the server but data on the client has different structure as a rule. Do you know any example where client storage as SQL DB is *really* needed? And by the way what flavor of sql is used? Transactions, stored procedures / triggers ? Or we will declare that we all should have to use SQLite only? (I have nothing against SQLite per se - it is good) Some particular company may find that for their particular tasks SQL is exactly what is needed but I do not think that it is wise to assume that all storage needs will fit in procrustean bed of SQL/ relational DBs and all UA vendors will agree to use the same version of SQLite. I suspect that initial simple *Berkeley DB* alike proposal is what really needed and enough in most cases. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 23:45:52 UTC