by thayne on 10/11/21, 2:48 PM
I really don't get why Mozilla argued that they would have to re-implement SQLite for WebSQL, but then used SQLite for IndexedDB. Why were they so opposed to using SQLite for WebSQL?
by themihai on 10/11/21, 6:01 PM
by ArtTimeInvestor on 10/11/21, 4:04 PM
It would be the biggest irony ever if the web settles on sql.js [1] plus persistance based on IndexedDB.
Then to comfortably store data, we would have SQLite running in WebAssembly persisting the data via the awkward IndexedDB API which uses the comfortable SQLite API to store the data in native SQLite.
[1] https://sql.js.org
by 8trackbattlecat on 10/11/21, 6:40 PM
At the time (2010?), WebSQL was the only way to store more than 5MB of data on both android chrome and ios safari. (Used it slightly ridiculously for storing base64 photos when there was no data connection.)
It was quite frustrating when it got deprecated, it felt like they were killing the only way to get close to parity with native apps. I refused to use firefox for about 5 years.
by InfiniteRand on 10/11/21, 9:01 PM
What is the developer experience these days with IndexedDB. I stopped working web development shortly after IndexedDB started getting implemented, and I know the early implementations had some rough edges, my understanding is that there was some effort to improve apis over the last 5 or 6 years. So I would be interested if someone with some experience could speak to it
by mucholove on 10/11/21, 2:24 PM
by postalrat on 10/11/21, 6:08 PM