4 ms·

Am I the only one that's sad about this?

by ronaldj 16y ago

jhrobert 16y ago
I am sad only to extend that there is some juice in SQL that the SQL people where unable to inject into JavaScript, either because of lazyness or more probably because they will never compromise at the syntax level when times come to reduce the impedance mismatch between two different language syntaxes.
bphogan 16y ago
No, in fact I'm mighty upset about this and have been for some time, mainly cos the damn thing isn't vaporware. It exists in Safari and Chrome, whereas IndexedDB works nowhere yet but "sounds neat." I want to see what WebKit browsers are going to do. I use this in a couple of small HTML5 offline apps.
k7d 16y ago
Yeah, me too. I think it's just politics, in the best traditions of big corporations, that doesn't do any good to actual web developers. From practical perspective we would be better off with Web SQL DB. Functionally it addresses everything a developer needs to create offline HTML apps. API is not perfect but you can always improve that with small wrapper libraries (like JQuery improves DOM API). You can always easily implement IndexDB-like API on top off SQL if you really want that. The opposite is probably possible but much more difficult. Also I think IndexDB might turn out to be yet another compatibility headache because everybody will be creating their own implementation (I'm pretty sure there will be at least 3 - Microsoft, Mozilla & Webkit). It's a speculation but most likely this wouldn't be an issue with Web SQL DB because everybody would just use the same SQLLite backend. And worst of all, this is delaying progress of web applications. Lack of solid cross-browser client-side storage solution is the last big gap for next generation of web applications. If everybody had just agreed on SQLLite we could be there today... now it's still unknown when we will get there.
- sid0 16y ago
  Also I think IndexDB might turn out to be yet another compatibility headache because everybody will be creating their own implementation (I'm pretty sure there will be at least 3 - Microsoft, Mozilla & Webkit). It's a speculation but most likely this wouldn't be an issue with Web SQL DB because everybody would just use the same SQLLite backend. For a proposed web standard to become an actual web standard there need to be at least two implementations. This is a good, healthy thing. There was going to be no second implementation of Web SQL, so it was never going to become a standard.
anarchitect 16y ago
Well it's annoying that I've just finished coding a fairly complicated class this week which relies solely on Web SQL! Thankfully the app (a touchscreen kiosk which you'll see in a few museums in London) runs only in Chrome, so it'll be fine for as long as it's supported there.

Am I the only one that's sad about this?

by ronaldj 16y ago

Am I the only one that's sad about this?

I am sad only to extend that there is some juice in SQL that the SQL people where unable to inject into JavaScript, either because of lazyness or more probably because they will never compromise at the syntax level when times come to reduce the impedance mismatch between two different language syntaxes.

bphogan 16y ago

No, in fact I'm mighty upset about this and have been for some time, mainly cos the damn thing isn't vaporware. It exists in Safari and Chrome, whereas IndexedDB works nowhere yet but "sounds neat." I want to see what WebKit browsers are going to do. I use this in a couple of small HTML5 offline apps.

k7d 16y ago

Yeah, me too. I think it's just politics, in the best traditions of big corporations, that doesn't do any good to actual web developers. From practical perspective we would be better off with Web SQL DB. Functionally it addresses everything a developer needs to create offline HTML apps. API is not perfect but you can always improve that with small wrapper libraries (like JQuery improves DOM API). You can always easily implement IndexDB-like API on top off SQL if you really want that. The opposite is probably possible but much more difficult. Also I think IndexDB might turn out to be yet another compatibility headache because everybody will be creating their own implementation (I'm pretty sure there will be at least 3 - Microsoft, Mozilla & Webkit). It's a speculation but most likely this wouldn't be an issue with Web SQL DB because everybody would just use the same SQLLite backend. And worst of all, this is delaying progress of web applications. Lack of solid cross-browser client-side storage solution is the last big gap for next generation of web applications. If everybody had just agreed on SQLLite we could be there today... now it's still unknown when we will get there.

sid0 16y ago
Also I think IndexDB might turn out to be yet another compatibility headache because everybody will be creating their own implementation (I'm pretty sure there will be at least 3 - Microsoft, Mozilla & Webkit). It's a speculation but most likely this wouldn't be an issue with Web SQL DB because everybody would just use the same SQLLite backend. For a proposed web standard to become an actual web standard there need to be at least two implementations. This is a good, healthy thing. There was going to be no second implementation of Web SQL, so it was never going to become a standard.

anarchitect 16y ago

Well it's annoying that I've just finished coding a fairly complicated class this week which relies solely on Web SQL! Thankfully the app (a touchscreen kiosk which you'll see in a few museums in London) runs only in Chrome, so it'll be fine for as long as it's supported there.