- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:11:20 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Monday, 11 February 2013 at 14:28, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 2/10/13 5:37 PM, Miko Nieminen wrote: > > Sorry for dropping previous content in this thread, but I just > > subscribed to this list and the only way I found to reply to older > > messages is by using archives and "respond to this message" link. > > > > It seems that people criticize IndexedDB quite a lot and I don't quite > > agree with most of the criticism. I have been playing with IDB for > > couple of months now I actually quite like it. It has its shortcomings, > > but I think NoSQL database is very good choice as browser based > > database and there are multiple reasons why I favour this approach over > > embedding SQL DBMS. > > > > It isn't an either or proposition. Each API serves different kinds of > data access needs. As you say, IndexedDB works fine once you understand > its problem space focus :-) The different data access needs is not the issue (well, not so much… though IndexedDB feels like a computer science experiment, rather than a replacement for the common use cases of WebSQL). The problem is more about how access to that data (and errors/events that occur from it) are represented as an API - and how the developer is forced to deal with those (i.e., the gymnastics and callback spaghetti). You only really get a sense of that by trying to use the API or looking at examples of the API in use (like [1]). If you are accustomed to working with complicated APIs (e.g., you come from Java or something), then you might just be wondering what all the whinging is about… but if you come from, say, using buttery-smooth-API-silk like JQuery, then you are probably feeling a bit cheated. [1] http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/indexeddb/todo/#toc-step2 -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 16:11:53 UTC