4 ms·
Honestly, we should just have native SQLite supported by the browser. SQLite has become the defacto local single file database standard. It has a very permiss
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
Honestly, we should just have native SQLite supported by the browser.
SQLite has become the defacto local single file database standard.
It has a very permissive license.
It has support contracts out to the 2050s (service lifetime of Airbus A350 airframe).
SQLite will probably have a longer lifetime than whatever browser standard we have now.
- biftek 2y agoUnfortunately WebSQL was ahead of its time, I have no doubt it would have caught on more today with the resurgent popularity of SQLite. IndexedDB got to ride the NoSQL hype of the 2010's
- mickael-kerjean 2y ago100% agree, the websql debacle is the reason I stopped using Firefox entirely. Dropping the ball when faced with some issues isn't ok when you're in a position to fix the specs
- infogulch 2y agoI was also disappointed, but this decision seems reasonable to me. SQLite is still evolving, if you pick a specific version then you're stuck on that version or risk breaking people that depend on specifics of that version. Also a vulnerability anywhere in SQLite would expose billions of people to exploits. This is not the same as applications using sqlite internally, the web is a much hotter environment: most apps may expect potentially hostile input in SQL params, but with WebSQL everything is potentially hostile: the queries, the database files, even the schema may conspire under confusing concurrency conditions to corrupt the state of the sqlite engine to break out and exploit the user. Whatever you think you have to agree that this is a LOT of new surface area. I much prefer this approach where the site brings their own sandboxed SQLite WASM package.