RE: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote: > > - Expecting a single writer model is not the way the relational > databases have been designed. Note: Neither Microsoft Jet nor Microsoft > SQL CE exhibit this behavior. The right way (read: ANSI way) is to have > isolation levels for transactions. I am happy to restrict the number of > isolation levels to be supported are limited to what SQLite supports. > Namely, ReadCommitted and Serializable. On the other hand, it might be > good idea to have a connection level parameter/knob to say it is a read > only connection Vs. read-write connection. Could you elaborate on how this could be exposed without exposing scripts to race conditions? > - I am a new bee to web programming. However, not having the ability to > control when to commit or when to rollback is little uncomfortable. It > is as uncomfortable as treating the local storage as cookie and have UA > clear it whenever it wishes (there is thread going on this local storage > being treated as bookmark cache Vs. cookie cache). In terms of scenario > or use case, think about shopping cart web site. I am going thru a list > of products. I have added some of the products to shopping cart, but > then I realized that the total amount is exceeding the limit I have in > my mind. In this case, I would like go and drop some of the products to > bring the total value to limit I have in my mind. In this case, I don't > think User Agent should open another transaction to execute 'DELETE' > statements. There can be no user interaction interleaved with transactions (well, unless you do something pretty crazy where you do dummy SELECTs while waiting for user input with the async API, but I don't think we should be even remotely encouraging that!). So I don't think that use case makes sense here. > - SQL as the query language is a hard one to bet on as almost all > databases have failed to be compliant. Be it SQLite, SQL CE, BDB. All > have tried to stick to a behavior set by some existing products like SQL > Server or Oracle or Sybase. I can quote some examples to prove that > compliance is not achieved in SQL world, but I defer that to keep this > mail short. In fact, this spec itself did not start to put SQL query > language stuff because of the same standardization issues. "[SQL] The > precise dialect has not yet been specified." "not yet" being the operative term. If there is interest from any vendors other than those using Sqlite, I'll be happy to spec the precise dialect required for interop. > Before we make this as a public working draft, I would like to see the > spec become multi database vendor friendly. Today the spec reflects > SQLite architecture which is against the basic value system of > standards. I am sure you guys would also agree with me that standards > are there to promote multiple vendors and provide a platform for healthy > competition. I agree that it would be better if the spec defined the precise dialect of SQL to be supported. However, unless doing this would mean Microsoft and Mozilla would be willing to implement this API, it seems like a lot of work for minimal benefit. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
Although formally, this is an FPWD, in reality this is the third FPWD for this content already. While implementable, Oracle is concerned about two aspects of this draft that have never changed materially since the original publication of the said content in HTML5 WDs: 1. Complex programming model that will make usage prone to making more mistakes than usual for database programming 2. Inadequate effort by the editor to ascertain the suitability of this spec to be implemented independently by multiple parties We agree with Jonas and Laxmi that this is neither a great direction to pursue nor is FPWD itself going to bring about much progress. Nevertheless, we, too, support publication of the WebDatabase draft as FPWD. We are also very pleased to announce that following up on our previous strawman proposal [1], we have drafted a new Database API [2] that does not rely on SQL or SQLite. It is still in a relatively early state and will undergo some more changes before we pursue wider publication. However, we welcome any and all feedback on our draft proposal. Nikunj [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/f480f60a-5dae-4b73-922a-93ed401cf...@oracle.com [2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDatabase/ On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I support a FPWD since I'm all for drafts of any kind being published. However, I'm still unconvinced that this draft is heading the right way for the web. My concern is two-fold: 1. It doesn't define enough to allow multiple interoperable implementations. This is because the SQL dialect is not defined. 2. SQL doesn't seem very web-friendly. For example the ability to store serializable JS objects and index on a property of that JS object seems hard to fit with SQL. The problem is even greater when the two are combined. Once the SQL dialect is defined, it's quite possible that UAs won't be able to use a SQL library like sqlite, but instead have to more or less build their own SQL implementation. This makes the cost extremely high, and the result not something that even that closely matches what developers want. / Jonas On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality was included in the Web Storage spec. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is September 7. -Regards, Art Barstow Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
On Aug 31, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality was included in the Web Storage spec. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is September 7. We support this publication and look forward to comments on the current model as well as counter-proposals. -Regards, Art Barstow
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:31 PM, ext Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote: I am fine this going for public working draft and hence get reach more people/community for review. OK. From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com] ... just to make sure that we are clear on what you are objecting to: the CfC is for a Working Draft (what's more, the first) to be published. This by no means entails ratification by W3C, it simply reflects where the group is on that topic. Correct; thanks for clarifying this Robin. -Regards, Art Barstow
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
On Sep 1, 2009, at 19:31 , Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote: LINQ is a hard one to push as LINQ again ties back to Microsoft only (single vendor). As a Microsoft employee I am super excited about LINQ, but as standards advocate LINQ is not the right one. Unless Microsoft puts some effort in standardizing the LINQ and promotes few other vendors go for it (much like ODBC), I would not vouch for it in web standards. On the other hand, I have heard of efforts in having LINQ like stuff in Java. I don't have an agenda to push for LINQ, but I don't think that the reasons you quote eliminate it as an option — many successful standards started off as a single vendor solution and were later submitted for consideration by a standards group. I guess what I'm saying is: since you don't like the SQL-based approach that is currently being explored, and since you have a wealth of research into better alternatives, why not look into contributing them? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
I support a FPWD since I'm all for drafts of any kind being published. However, I'm still unconvinced that this draft is heading the right way for the web. My concern is two-fold: 1. It doesn't define enough to allow multiple interoperable implementations. This is because the SQL dialect is not defined. 2. SQL doesn't seem very web-friendly. For example the ability to store serializable JS objects and index on a property of that JS object seems hard to fit with SQL. The problem is even greater when the two are combined. Once the SQL dialect is defined, it's quite possible that UAs won't be able to use a SQL library like sqlite, but instead have to more or less build their own SQL implementation. This makes the cost extremely high, and the result not something that even that closely matches what developers want. / Jonas On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft > (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ > > Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality was > included in the Web Storage spec. > > As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and > silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is September > 7. > > -Regards, Art Barstow > > > >
RE: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote: > > I am sorry to say 'No'. If it is wrong time to speak out, please pardon > me for keeping quiet for so long. FWIW, Microsoft already supported publishing Web Database as a First Public Working Draft in January 2008: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080122/#sql -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
RE: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
Hey WebApps Group, I am happy to see people scared (much like me :)). If CFC is just for public *working* draft, then I think I was unnecessarily worried and thanks Robin for helping me out here. I am fine this going for public working draft and hence get reach more people/community for review. Hey Robin, LINQ is a hard one to push as LINQ again ties back to Microsoft only (single vendor). As a Microsoft employee I am super excited about LINQ, but as standards advocate LINQ is not the right one. Unless Microsoft puts some effort in standardizing the LINQ and promotes few other vendors go for it (much like ODBC), I would not vouch for it in web standards. On the other hand, I have heard of efforts in having LINQ like stuff in Java. On the positive front, I am glad to work with people to find an alternative here that is widely acceptable. I will come back on that later. Thanks, Laxmi -Original Message- From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:34 PM To: Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti Cc: public-webapps; Pablo Castro Subject: Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September Hi Laxmi, just to make sure that we are clear on what you are objecting to: the CfC is for a Working Draft (what's more, the first) to be published. This by no means entails ratification by W3C, it simply reflects where the group is on that topic. This is not to say that you shouldn't object, I am just indicating that you can dislike this specification and still agree that it can be published because it'll grant it wider review than what it has today (and perhaps spur someone into proposing something better before this ships). I personally agree with your objections, but I'm okay with this draft being published because I'd really like browsers to have an advanced form of storage, and since I think SQL is the wrong option for this I'm hoping it'll scare someone into offering a better alternative. I am curious: given that you care about the right option being selected here, have you considered proposing LINQ as an option for the WG to work on (or a subset thereof)? Having a positive proposal can go a long way in terms of shaping a specification. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
Hi Laxmi, just to make sure that we are clear on what you are objecting to: the CfC is for a Working Draft (what's more, the first) to be published. This by no means entails ratification by W3C, it simply reflects where the group is on that topic. This is not to say that you shouldn't object, I am just indicating that you can dislike this specification and still agree that it can be published because it'll grant it wider review than what it has today (and perhaps spur someone into proposing something better before this ships). I personally agree with your objections, but I'm okay with this draft being published because I'd really like browsers to have an advanced form of storage, and since I think SQL is the wrong option for this I'm hoping it'll scare someone into offering a better alternative. I am curious: given that you care about the right option being selected here, have you considered proposing LINQ as an option for the WG to work on (or a subset thereof)? Having a positive proposal can go a long way in terms of shaping a specification. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
RE: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
I am sorry to say 'No'. If it is wrong time to speak out, please pardon me for keeping quiet for so long. The 'Web Database' specification in its current form is not acceptable for the following reasons: - Expecting a single writer model is not the way the relational databases have been designed. Note: Neither Microsoft Jet nor Microsoft SQL CE exhibit this behavior. The right way (read: ANSI way) is to have isolation levels for transactions. I am happy to restrict the number of isolation levels to be supported are limited to what SQLite supports. Namely, ReadCommitted and Serializable. On the other hand, it might be good idea to have a connection level parameter/knob to say it is a read only connection Vs. read-write connection. - I am a new bee to web programming. However, not having the ability to control when to commit or when to rollback is little uncomfortable. It is as uncomfortable as treating the local storage as cookie and have UA clear it whenever it wishes (there is thread going on this local storage being treated as bookmark cache Vs. cookie cache). In terms of scenario or use case, think about shopping cart web site. I am going thru a list of products. I have added some of the products to shopping cart, but then I realized that the total amount is exceeding the limit I have in my mind. In this case, I would like go and drop some of the products to bring the total value to limit I have in my mind. In this case, I don't think User Agent should open another transaction to execute 'DELETE' statements. - SQL as the query language is a hard one to bet on as almost all databases have failed to be compliant. Be it SQLite, SQL CE, BDB. All have tried to stick to a behavior set by some existing products like SQL Server or Oracle or Sybase. I can quote some examples to prove that compliance is not achieved in SQL world, but I defer that to keep this mail short. In fact, this spec itself did not start to put SQL query language stuff because of the same standardization issues. "[SQL] The precise dialect has not yet been specified." Before we make this as a public working draft, I would like to see the spec become multi database vendor friendly. Today the spec reflects SQLite architecture which is against the basic value system of standards. I am sure you guys would also agree with me that standards are there to promote multiple vendors and provide a platform for healthy competition. I like SQLite for what it is, but a specific implementation becoming a standard is not digestible for me (and for many). You might be thinking it is weird to expect the spec to be completely written ground up than accepting the current SQLite reverse engineered spec; but I think it is right thing for all of us (i.e. W3C standardization body, database vendors, browser vendors, and web developers). Thanks, Laxmi -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:05 PM To: Arthur Barstow Cc: public-webapps Subject: Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working > Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ > > Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality > was included in the Web Storage spec. > > As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged > and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is > September 7. I support publishing. - Maciej
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality was included in the Web Storage spec. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is September 7. I support publishing. - Maciej
Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:01:03 +0600, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality was included in the Web Storage spec. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is September 7. We support publication. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality was included in the Web Storage spec. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is September 7. -Regards, Art Barstow
