Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

E.g. they assert that, despite having pure-native views (e.g. no Swing-style "one UI for all platforms"), they share ~70% of the client-side code across iOS/Android/web.

Which to me insinuates the reused code is probably things like the domain models, validation rules, and also online/offline data storage/sync logic.

E.g. maybe Lovefield was part of that cross-platform client-side storage architecture. But probably not since it's Javascript. (Which is fine, Google is a big place/lots of different apps/needs.)

> "With WebSQL being deprecated, and IndexedDB not providing structured queries, web developers need a tool to satisfy their structured query needs."

> "Web app developers need structured queries to work in the mobile world."

> "With IndexedDB ... there's a steeeep learning curve to make it useful for your app. Moreover, IndexedDB does not provide structured queries."

> "IndexedDB does not offer structured query features, such as sorting by multiple columns, or joining the results of multiple tables."

As someone that looked forward to WebSQL, this is painful to hear. Many of us realized the above from the beginning. Yet, some in the standards committee found a way to shoot down WebSQL, w/vague rationale such as "we don't feel it's the best path for the web".

Well, thank you. Instead of giving us one of the most well tested SQL implementations (SQL Lite) that addresses all of the above, and much more, we were shoved a harder to use, more verbose, and less powerful alternative (IndexedDB). And as a result, we're having to implement our own relational databases. In JavaScript. 4-5 years later.

No offense to Lovefield, but it represents everything wrong w/the decision to deprecate WebSQL and implement IndexedDB instead. It was also the single-most decision that made me lose faith in the standards committee.