Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

google.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#41

Post by moron4hire »

This just goes to prove that what developers really want out of browsers is not a document viewer but a deployment platform. To go to these lengths, someone has to be very concerned about getting one set of code to run on practically any device. You don't otherwise end up with something like this.

This wouldn't have been possible without the work the Chromium team has done to achieve such complete compatibility between desktop and mobile versions. But unfortunately the browser is still stuck in the mentality that it's just a document viewer. I think we really need to wake up and make the browser into a proper deployment platform. I applaud efforts like this, even if I don't immediately have a need for such a thing, because they are doing the necessary work to push on browser developers to release the right features towards that goal.

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#42

Post by teacup50 »

lighthawk wrote: post #32
mzarate06 wrote: post #29

From the first 1 minute and 15 seconds of the video: > "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 querie…

> It was also the single-most decision that made me lose faith in the standards committee. When I try to think of any product or service born of a standards committee that has been wildly successful, I can't think of any. Standards committees are useful if the goal is to bring consensus-driven stagnation (and standards), so that things can evolve around a group of products/services rather than just individual product…

> When I try to think of any product or service born of a standards committee that has been wildly successful, I can't think of any.

He says in a post submitted over HTTP, using DNS for name lookup, TCP for OSI layer 3 transport, implemented in client software via POSIX socket APIs, encapsulated in IEEE 802.2 frames traveling across IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.11-defined physical mediums, routed by BGP and maybe even some OSPF.

Come on. You really can't think of any?

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#43

Post by bcoates »

teacup50 wrote: post #42
lighthawk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was also the single-most decision that made me lose faith in the standards committee. When I try to think of any product or service born of a standards committee that has been wildly successful, I can't think of any. Standards committees are useful if the goal is to bring consensus-driven stagnation (and standards), so that things can evolve around a group of products/services rather than just individual product…

> When I try to think of any product or service born of a standards committee that has been wildly successful, I can't think of any. He says in a post submitted over HTTP , using DNS for name lookup, TCP for OSI layer 3 transport, implemented in client software via POSIX socket APIs, encapsulated in IEEE 802.2 frames traveling across IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.11 -defined physical mediums, routed by BGP and maybe even s…

Are any of those except maybe 802.11 born of a standards committee?

off the top of my head: HTTP came from CERN and w3c was years later; TCP is the alternative to the stillborn OSI standard; POSIX is a relatively recent AT&T UNIX-clone standardization effort; Ethernet was from Xerox PARC (although most of a modern implementation is from the IEEE era)

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#44

Post by marknadal »

amelius wrote: post #25

What happens when the user opens two tabs, both of which try to access the same local database?

Disclosure: I'm the author of a competing JavaScript database (http://gunDB.io/).

Unfortunately concurrency is typically the last thing that people think about. Concurrency is the first thing we deal with in our database, because you are right, without it data gets corrupted.

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#45

Post by marknadal »

neilellis wrote: post #5
jdimov9 wrote: post #3

What is a browser database and what is it good for? Would you use one instead of a back-end DB or in conjunction with one? How? Why? Why is this on 1st page - what is cool about it? I'm clearly missing something, but I can't be bothered to watch the videos - can someone TL;DR it for me, please.

It's like having PouchDB -> CouchDB but with SQL not NoSQL For me I'd like to: Firebase as backend. Sync user data to browser. Query user data elegantly in browser using select statements.

Have you seen http://gunDB.io (disclosure: I am the author)? It has what you are describing. As well as replication and conflict resolution that the other commenter mentions.

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#46

Post by cromwellian »

stephen wrote: post #23

Interesting. At first I was thinking this might be part of their cross-platform (iOS/Android/web) architecture that they use for Inbox, Sheets, and a few other things. 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,…

iOS/Android have SQLLite, LoveField is kind of like an SQL-lite for the Web.

Your speculation isn't that far off.

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#47

Post by amelius »

marknadal wrote: post #44
amelius wrote: post #25

What happens when the user opens two tabs, both of which try to access the same local database?

Disclosure: I'm the author of a competing JavaScript database ( http://gunDB.io/ ). Unfortunately concurrency is typically the last thing that people think about. Concurrency is the first thing we deal with in our database, because you are right, without it data gets corrupted.

So would it be possible to communicate between the two tabs, via the database? In an event-driven way?

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#48

Post by cscharenberg »

bcoates wrote: post #43
teacup50 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I try to think of any product or service born of a standards committee that has been wildly successful, I can't think of any. He says in a post submitted over HTTP , using DNS for name lookup, TCP for OSI layer 3 transport, implemented in client software via POSIX socket APIs, encapsulated in IEEE 802.2 frames traveling across IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.11 -defined physical mediums, routed by BGP and maybe even s…

Are any of those except maybe 802.11 born of a standards committee? off the top of my head: HTTP came from CERN and w3c was years later; TCP is the alternative to the stillborn OSI standard; POSIX is a relatively recent AT&T UNIX-clone standardization effort; Ethernet was from Xerox PARC (although most of a modern implementation is from the IEEE era)

Exactly - most of these became standards after an entity produced a good solution in the real world and it became useful to formalize them and evolve collectively.

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#49

Post by cwmma »

mzarate06 wrote: post #29

From the first 1 minute and 15 seconds of the video: > "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 querie…

If you are ever curious about why WebSQL was shot down, how it happened in excruciating detail:

http://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memori...

Re: Lovefield – A relational database for web apps

#50

Post by teacup50 »

bcoates wrote: post #43
teacup50 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I try to think of any product or service born of a standards committee that has been wildly successful, I can't think of any. He says in a post submitted over HTTP , using DNS for name lookup, TCP for OSI layer 3 transport, implemented in client software via POSIX socket APIs, encapsulated in IEEE 802.2 frames traveling across IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.11 -defined physical mediums, routed by BGP and maybe even s…

Are any of those except maybe 802.11 born of a standards committee? off the top of my head: HTTP came from CERN and w3c was years later; TCP is the alternative to the stillborn OSI standard; POSIX is a relatively recent AT&T UNIX-clone standardization effort; Ethernet was from Xerox PARC (although most of a modern implementation is from the IEEE era)

What qualifies as "born"?

Successful standards committees are just a group of implementing industry members. WebSQL, for example, was edited by Ian Hickson.

The work almost always predates the standards committee -- also just like WebSQL.

Post reply on HN