- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:51:49 -0700
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 23:22:08 +0200, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Would there be a lot of overhead in just doing this through
>>> XMLHttpRequest,
>>> some processing, and the database API?
>>
>> Good question. I think you're suggesting...
>> * statementsToCreateAndPopulateSQLDatabase ?= httpGet();
>> * foreach(statement in above) { execute(statement); }
>> * now you get to run queries of interest
>
> Yeah, or maybe a custom format that you parse in ECMAScript if you want to
> save bandwidth. (And in a Worker, if you don't want to bother the user :-))
>
>
>> Certainly going to use more client-side CPU than downloading a fully
>> formed db file. I think the download size would greater (all of the
>> 'INSERT into' text overhead), but thats just a guess. A database
>> containing FTS tables would change things a bit too (even less
>> client-side cpu, but more download size).
>
> There are certainly drawbacks, but given that we still haven't nailed all
> the details of the database API proposal discussed by the WebApps WG (e.g.
> the SQL syntax) and given that it has not been deployed widely, it seems
> somewhat premature to start introducing convenient APIs around it that
> introduce a significant amount of complexity themselves. Defining the rules
> for parsing and creating a raw database file in a secure way is a whole new
> layer of issues and the gain seems small.
I don't think this feature's time has come yet either. Just food for thought.
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 13:51:49 UTC