Like I said, I'm not sure this was a winnable fight.
Like I said, I'm not sure this was a winnable fight. And yes, writing a good DB implementation from scratch is really, really hard. But... First, keep in mind that lot of this decision was political; if Mozilla had lobbied for it a lot of fudging could have been done. Instead Mozilla made sure that a strict reading of the rules was used by which, yes, WebSQL clearly failed. And no, Mozilla probably didn't have the resources to implement SQLite from scratch, but: 1. They could have worked with others. Apple, quite clearly, was much more invested in WebSQL than IndexedDB. Could they have contributed to a join effort? We'll never know. 2. In particular, the rule about needing two seperate implementations is good, but it could have been fudged here; a bigger problem was the lack of a spec beyond "whatever Sqlite does". Did Mozilla have the resources to clearly specify how a reference implementation should work, even if the only actual implementation remained Sqlite? Maybe. Would that have been enough? Arguably. 3. In the event, IndexedDB was not a real replacement for WebSQL; at most it was an important tool that could be used to build one, some day; a process that is still ongoing (eg, with PouchDB) and has no real end in site. Even if we lacked the resources to really bring WebSQL up to par and re-implement Sqlite from scratch, we apparently lack the resources to bring IndexedDB up to par too. If we're doomed to spend years struggling with broken implementations and poor browser support either way, what did we gain with IndexedDB? Like I said, I don't know that there was a good solution to this. But I feel like Mozilla helped ensure we got a bad one.
Posted by Lazare on Jul 30, 2015, 11:18 PM
Tags
Related issues
- This is my biggest problem with agents, they constantly defensively code for cases that have no chance of happening and in most cases a p...
- I wish there was something like LEAN for biology.
- The issue is really the extreme difficulty of programming them, especially for anything sequential (rather than combinatorial).
- I probably could have beared with it if it was only limited to programming, but it showing up in creative fields has made me feel all sor...
- I hate that I'm in deep enough to know what you mean.
- The biggest problem with “AI” is that big corps are shoving it down our throats.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,000 issues0 comments
reliability (Other)
This is my biggest problem with agents, they constantly defensively code for cases that have no chance of happening and in most cases a p...
NewI wish there was something like LEAN for biology.
NewThe issue is really the extreme difficulty of programming them, especially for anything sequential (rather than combinatorial).
I probably could have beared with it if it was only limited to programming, but it showing up in creative fields has made me feel all sor...
I hate that I'm in deep enough to know what you mean.
The biggest problem with “AI” is that big corps are shoving it down our throats.
in the middel of a coding session with 5.6 sol.
[Hero Run] 535B-A23B on 18T tokens
Like I said, I'm not sure this was a winnable fight.
Like I said, I'm not sure this was a winnable fight. And yes, writing a good DB implementation from scratch is really, really hard. But... First, keep in mind that lot of this decision was political; if Mozilla had lobbied for it a lot of fudging could have been done. Instead Mozilla made sure that a strict reading of the rules was used by which, yes, WebSQL clearly failed. And no, Mozilla probably didn't have the resources to implement SQLite from scratch, but: 1. They could have worked with others. Apple, quite clearly, was much more invested in WebSQL than IndexedDB. Could they have contributed to a join effort? We'll never know. 2. In particular, the rule about needing two seperate implementations is good, but it could have been fudged here; a bigger problem was the lack of a spec beyond "whatever Sqlite does". Did Mozilla have the resources to clearly specify how a reference implementation should work, even if the only actual implementation remained Sqlite? Maybe. Would that have been enough? Arguably. 3. In the event, IndexedDB was not a real replacement for WebSQL; at most it was an important tool that could be used to build one, some day; a process that is still ongoing (eg, with PouchDB) and has no real end in site. Even if we lacked the resources to really bring WebSQL up to par and re-implement Sqlite from scratch, we apparently lack the resources to bring IndexedDB up to par too. If we're doomed to spend years struggling with broken implementations and poor browser support either way, what did we gain with IndexedDB? Like I said, I don't know that there was a good solution to this. But I feel like Mozilla helped ensure we got a bad one.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.