Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Places and Firefox 2
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Benjamin Smedberg  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 2006, 4:34 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:34:39 -0400
Local: Mon, Apr 24 2006 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: Places and Firefox 2
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Mike Connor wrote:
> Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>> Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
>>> Yes, the plan is still for mozStorage to ship with Fx2 so that it's
>>> available to extension authors.  This should give a much nicer
>>> alternative to RDF/XML for data storage.

>> How was that decided? Part of the codesize tradeoff for sqlite was the
>> removal of the full mork engine. Shipping both sounds like a silly
>> idea since the app won't be using sqlite at all (unless there are
>> other dependencies that I've missed).
> I'm less concerned with codesize than with shipping a stronger
> platform.  There's also the strong possibility that we'll be supporting
> a subset of the WHATWG local storage spec in Gecko 1.8.1, based on sqlite.

Who is doing that work?

I am wary of shipping complex platform-level features that do not get
widespread "natural" testing, and have not received (IMO) sufficient
targeted testing in the field. The SQLite performance issues that were
turned up by the places work amplified my initial worry several times over.
Since we are certainly not going to be freezing the storage interfaces for
this cycle, I am very wary of shipping them or encouranging developers to
use them.

There are outstanding unresolved issues about how we plan to version the
SQLite data structures over time within profiles (most of which are
admittedly app-level issues, not platform-level issues), as well as
questions about whether and to what extent we should be supporting
multi-process access to the data. Unless there is a Firefox 2 feature that
requires the storage APIs, I do not think that "a stronger platform" is a
good reason to ship this code.

--BDS


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google