Web SQL Database: In Memoriam (2014)

https://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memoriam/

by mucholove • 5 years ago

37 20 5 years ago

nolanlawson.com

mucholove2• 5 years ago

Getting acquainted with Javascript and the web today. Really wish I had this. Would make life very, very, very easy. :)

Today you get ABSURD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28156831

thayne• 5 years ago

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?

blacktriangle4• 5 years ago

They were opposed to having a web standard, which should be a generic standard, be implementation defined. Mozilla would have had to re-implement SQLite for WebSQL based on the principle that there should not be a standard with only a single implementation.

There's nothing wrong with implementing the actual standard IndexedDB on top of SQLite, since it's entirely possible to reimplement IndexedDB on top of a different underlying database.

WebSQL would have been awesome right up until the moment that some new platform takes off where SQLite won't meet the requirements for but we want to reach with the web platform, at which point we'd be screwed. Or even worse, WebSQL would guarentee that the reach of the web platform has been fundamentally limited by what a single codebase can reach.

laszlokorte• 5 years ago

Wouldn't it have been simple/easy to define a facade in front of sqlite as the standard?

Like some basic SQL select/insert/update/create table/drop table syntax and semantics? In a way such that advanced/specific features are not available in order to not be relied on and then let all browsers just use sqlite as implementation detail?

bob1029• 5 years ago

where SQLite won't meet the requirements

What does SQLite not run on in 2021?

https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html

chasil2• 5 years ago

SQLite does not appear to prioritize malicious SQL CVEs. They surmise that an adversary that has already compromised an application to the extent of issuing arbitrary SQL must have many other avenues of control.

https://www.sqlite.org/cves.html

While SQLite earned DO-178B compliance status through a difficult test suite that appears to verify every branch instruction at the assembler/machine level, focus on hostile SQL is demonstrably not a priority.

https://sqlite.org/th3.html#history

Web applications are going to see hostile SQL, so this is a problem. I know that additional sandboxing was implemented in Chrome, but exploits always seem to find ways around.

A new implementation of SQLite, in Rust or Ada, that could spend more time on the safety of the parser because the various C foot-guns are removed, might have brought WebSQL to be, but that was a bridge too far.

hitekker• 5 years ago

When I hear of multiple CVEs described without details (or categorization), the phrase "Security Theatre" comes to mind.

Apparently, there is no formal oversight over how CVEs are reported or assigned severity. But because the label sounds official & authoritative & scary, people who spam CVEs are rewarded with clout.

Some have speculated that CVE inflation will lead to the death of the term altogether:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25612429

rasz• 5 years ago

Seeing as $1.5mil investment from Nvidia is all it took for Mozilla to kill its DeepSpeech program

https://venturebeat.com/2021/04/12/mozilla-winds-down-deepsp...

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-partners-with-nv...

someone should really look into any grants/investments/deals Mozilla did with Oracle at the time of WebSQL decision.

ArtTimeInvestor• 5 years ago

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

blacktriangle4• 5 years ago

Not ironic at all. One of the arguments against WebSQL and for IndexedDB was that the web platform should incorporate a lower level API and that the library ecosystem could then experiement with how to interact with that API at a higher level.

themihai2• 5 years ago

Once we have storage foundation[0] we can install "any" db in the browser. Of course the communication protocol would have to be tweaked a bit. Until then see absurd sql[1]

[0] https://web.dev/storage-foundation/

[1] https://hackaday.com/2021/08/24/sqlite-on-the-web-absurd-sql...

mucholove2• 5 years ago

Thank you! This is exactly why I did this post—someone would illuminate me :) What are the chances `storage foundation` gets adopted by all the other browsers? Not sure how the origin trial ends up as a standard.

themihai2• 5 years ago

I would say the chances are high to be adopted as a standard by all the other browsers...unless you consider Safari(aka IE6) part of the other browsers.

postalrat• 5 years ago

https://github.com/WICG/indexed-db-observers/blob/gh-pages/E...

Give me that and we can forget about web sql.

8trackbattlecat• 5 years ago

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.

InfiniteRand• 5 years ago

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

Web SQL Database: In Memoriam (2014)

Related Stories