So is IndexedDB a beefier version of localStorage or does it serve a different purpose altogether?
W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
31–40 of 87 posts
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#32So what does this mean for browsers that support web SQL and apps that are built on it? Is it likely that Safari, Chrome, etc. will drop support for it before a viable alternative is avaliable?
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#33I think that's a great news. HTML5 adds lots of complexity in the browser, and yet don't address most of the fundamental problems of HTML: security, complexity. Web SQL was another step in the wrong direction. Local storage wont go away. I hope Web SQL will be replaced by something "better" and more straightforward, A simple key-value database would be great.
> A simple key-value database would be great. That's exactly it: http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/
IndexedDB is anything but simple.
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most complex part of Web SQL effectively amounted to "Whatever SQLite implemented" Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software. Saying "reference it" is entirely rational. And really the ludicrous notion that documenting its behaviors is unfathomably difficult is so asinine that it demolishes that line of argument. neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it…
Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software. Sounds like Microsoft Windows to me :) I think that SQLite is a really nice database. But just because SQLite would work in the browser, doesn't mean W3C shouldn't try to do something better.
Where "better" doesn't mean "more efficient, more powerful, more understood, or more effective", but "more standard-y".
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#35No one has mentioned yet that both Android and iPhone implemented SQLite as described in the draft spec. There's a tremendous number of developers -- including myself -- who have built apps against it. The described spec may not become commonplace in desktop browsers, but it's an entirely different story on advanced mobile devices where Mozilla / Microsoft have nearly zero influence.
I definitely don't see this just suddenly evaporating or going unmaintained in those platforms.
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#36If the SQL guys were serious about their shit they should have patch some JavaScript at the syntax level. Instead they pushed/lobbied for the usual broken binding that is the very reason SQL is so contreversed: impedance mismatch. Of course, hacking a javascript parser to introduce some SQL semantic in it is not exactly "easy" Basically, the initiative was doomed from day one, what a waste of time...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. SQL works quite well in just about every language there is without introducing new syntax. Are you talking about something like LINQ? Nice, but unnecessary.
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most complex part of Web SQL effectively amounted to "Whatever SQLite implemented" Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software. Saying "reference it" is entirely rational. And really the ludicrous notion that documenting its behaviors is unfathomably difficult is so asinine that it demolishes that line of argument. neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it…
The truth is the reason they pointed to SQLite is because the proposed API was so obscenely complicated that it was easier to point to a reference implementation than to accurately specify a standard, which points to a rather fundamental problem with the proposed standard: SQL is too damn complicated, and embedding it in browsers is a bad idea. For a web standard to succeed, you need either Mozilla or Microsoft suppo…
Why not just use SQLite? Write a small wrapper around it to isolate each website off on it's own database or set of databases. Each site corresponds to a SQLite user with a password that ONLY the browser knows.
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software. Sounds like Microsoft Windows to me :) I think that SQLite is a really nice database. But just because SQLite would work in the browser, doesn't mean W3C shouldn't try to do something better.
Where "better" doesn't mean "more efficient, more powerful, more understood, or more effective", but "more standard-y".
Why is that the correct interpretation of "better". That seems like the wrong sort of "better".
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#39SQLite is already baked into Firefox and available to Firefox itself and to extensions/addons, although not available to web page authors:
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#40This spec isn't the only game for offline storage. IndexedDB is the favored replacement: http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/ I like it because the API is much more web-like than SQL. Others have other reasons to prefer it.
For someone unfamiliar with the term, what does "web-like" mean?
An API that maps to the underlying data-structure (btree, ranges, cursors), is bar-none simpler than an API that abtracts the underlying data structure away (like any SQL does).
The web was built by taking existing systems, and cutting away at them until they were so simple they barely worked. But because they were simple they could spread.
IndexedDB isn't the simplest spec it could be (I think they could do-away with transactions if they were willing to require MVCC semantics) but it is admirably simple for a database.