Sorry for ranting, but i think the websql precedent can be revisited given how disappointing indexeddb turned out to be. we could have had truly serverless frontend-apps free from backend hindrances by now. so much crap was added to javascript during intervening years to solve general-purpose programming issues on frontend/embedded systems that shouldn’t have existed if sqlite3 was accessible. ![]() Part of me feel like web-development has been set-back for nearly a decade after websql was dropped (and my perception of mozilla at time was it pulled a bait-and-switch over community). its not – as anecdata, i’m rarely aware of real-world scenarios where indexeddb is used as an “indexed” db (as opposed to dumb key-value store with improved quota over localstorage). You mention idealogical and web-compat reasons for dropping websql, but in order to sell that to the community, a 3rd factor was promise that indexeddb would be a “good-enough” replacement. Unlike websql, sql.js is a more isolated, persistence-free wasm-package with smaller security audit-burden on browsers. kripken/sql.js Issue: A way to attach multiple databases? sql.js issue 88 - A way to attach multiple databases?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |