On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Tim Caswell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally, the main thing I want to see is expose simpler and lower level > APIs. For my uses (backend to git server), the leveldb API is plenty > powerful. Most of the time I'm using IndexedDB, I'm getting frustrated > because it's way more complex than I need and gets in the way and slows > things down. > > Would it make sense to standardize on a simpler set of APIs similar to > what levelDB offers and expose that in addition to what indexedDB currently > exposes? Or would this make sense as a new API apart from IDB? > That sounds like a separate storage system to me, although you could imagine it shares some primitives with Indexed DB (e.g. keys/ordering). How much of leveldb's API you consider part of the minimum set - write batches? iterators? snapshots? custom comparators? multiple instances per application? And are IDB-style keys / serialized script values appropriate, or is that extra overhead over e.g. just strings? You may want to try prototyping this on top of Indexed DB as a library, and see what others think. It'd basically just be hiding most of the IDB API (versions, transactions, stores, indexes) behind functions that return Promises. > As a JS developer, I'd much rather see fast, simple, yet powerful > primitives over application-level databases with indexes and transactions > baked in. Chrome implements IDB on top of LevelDB, so it has just enough > primitives to make more complex systems. > > But for applications like mine that use immutable storage and hashes for > all lookups don't need or want the advanced features added on top. IDB is > a serious performance bottleneck in my apps and when using LevelDB in > node.js, my same logic runs a *lot* faster and using a lot less code. > > -Tim Caswell > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At the April 2014 WebApps WG F2F [1] there was general agreement that >> moving forward with an Indexed Database "v2" spec was a good idea. Ali >> Alabbas (Microsoft) has volunteered to co-edit the spec with me. >> Maintaining compatibility is the highest priority; this will not break the >> existing API. >> >> We've been tracking additional features for quite some time now, both on >> the wiki [2] and bug tracker [3]. Several are very straightforward >> (continuePrimaryKey, batch gets, binary keys, ...) and have already been >> implemented in some user agents, and it will be helpful to document these. >> Others proposals (URLs, Promises, full text search, ...) are much more >> complex and will require additional implementation feedback; we plan to add >> features to the v2 spec based on implementer acceptance. >> >> This is an informal call for feedback to implementers on what is missing >> from v1: >> >> * What features and functionality do you see as important to include? >> * How would you prioritize the features? >> >> If there's anything you think is missing from the wiki [2], or want to >> comment on the importance of a particular feature, please call it out - >> replying here is great. This will help implementers decide what work to >> prioritize, which will drive the spec work. We'd also like to keep the v2 >> cycle shorter than the v1 cycle was, so timely feedback is appreciated - >> there's always room for a "v3". >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/04/10-webapps-minutes.html >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/IndexedDatabaseFeatures >> [3] >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&component=Indexed%20Database%20API&list_id=34841&product=WebAppsWG&query_format=advanced&resolution=LATER >> >> PS: Big thanks to Zhiqiang Zhang for his Indexed DB implementation >> report, also presented at the F2F. >> > >
