3 ms·

If only there was a spec that implements a web SQL database... Oh wait, Mozilla didn't want to make the web more powerful so they refused to even consider it wi

If only there was a spec that implements a web SQL database... Oh wait, Mozilla didn't want to make the web more powerful so they refused to even consider it with dubious excuses.... And no, there was absolutely no need to specify SQL in the spec, only how to query the database. What do you think is easier to code? A sql builder capable of supporting different SQL dialects, or an entire SQL database? So we are stuck with this horrid indexedDB API... This, the refusal to even consider the File System API, HTML imports and many others things are reasons I stopped supporting and recommending Mozilla and Firefox as a developer.

samwillis 5y ago
Personally I think it was the right choice not to continue with WebSQL. Although it would have been good, there is so much more that you can now do with the coming low level file storage apis and WASM. There is going to be an explosion of different WASM databases, SQLite.js (which is better than websql as you can use all the various SQLite extensions) is only the first of many. It’s only a matter of time until MongoDB Realm is available as WASM[0] 0: https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/webassembly-in-roadmap/132218 https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/webassembly-in-ro...
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  SQLite.js is in memory only, it doesn't persist anything in web storage. There is absurd.js which uses indexedDB as a storage layer, but it's called absurd for a reason, the underlying storage engine browsers use, especially Firefox, is often Sqlite itself. So no, between a standard that allows the developer not have to load an extra blob of code and roll their own persistance layer, and a standard everybody implements, I'll take the standard. There is absolutely nothing right with the current situation.
  - samwillis 5y ago
    See my comments in this thread above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404255 A low level sandboxed file system api (which is 100% coming) will let developers do exactly what we want in incredible future proof way and not be tied to out of date and none extendable apis. I want sql in the browser, in my opinion websql was the wrong way to to it, Wasm is.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

samwillis 5y ago

Personally I think it was the right choice not to continue with WebSQL. Although it would have been good, there is so much more that you can now do with the coming low level file storage apis and WASM. There is going to be an explosion of different WASM databases, SQLite.js (which is better than websql as you can use all the various SQLite extensions) is only the first of many. It’s only a matter of time until MongoDB Realm is available as WASM[0] 0: https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/webassembly-in-roadmap/132218 https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/webassembly-in-ro...

throw_m239339 5y ago
SQLite.js is in memory only, it doesn't persist anything in web storage. There is absurd.js which uses indexedDB as a storage layer, but it's called absurd for a reason, the underlying storage engine browsers use, especially Firefox, is often Sqlite itself. So no, between a standard that allows the developer not have to load an extra blob of code and roll their own persistance layer, and a standard everybody implements, I'll take the standard. There is absolutely nothing right with the current situation.
- samwillis 5y ago
  See my comments in this thread above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404255 A low level sandboxed file system api (which is 100% coming) will let developers do exactly what we want in incredible future proof way and not be tied to out of date and none extendable apis. I want sql in the browser, in my opinion websql was the wrong way to to it, Wasm is.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]