Originally Posted by Firefly7475
"Indexed DB" is just the new way for HTML 5 applications to store offline content as "Web SQL" has been discontinued. Basically it is (or will be) how HTML 5 applications save their offline state (so it's not just a Google thing).
Think of it as an advanced method of HTML cookies!
When I stopped doing web development, I stopped paying attention to HTML standards and the like.
Without knowing any details (I will do some research) I would think that WebSQL (or WebDB) was/is a superior approach.
Another developer and I had a system working in 2004 -- a browser-driven system where you could run comprehensive web apps on the desktop
or on the web, or both. It included:
1) a Web Server
2) a Web Application Server
3) a High-Level Web Programming Language Interpreter/compiler
4) a SQL Database server
5) the populated database itself
6) Applications to use the above
No, Flash was not used in any form.
You could package the whole thing as a single file (.app on Mac OS X) and distribute it on a CD -- a typical package, including applications and data, would be 60MB, AIR.
You could even run the system from the CD if there were no DB updates.
The CD package could self-install -- copy itself to the desktop where it would run as a robust application(s) with full DB capability.
This was before the ubiquity of SQLite.
The package, if installed with the correct desktop permissions, could execute OS CLI level commands -- Essentially anything you could do from a terminal window, you could do within the app.
This included things like find and open a Word .doc file, then copy/paste the contents to the app -- or send a search request to the online iTunes store, retrieve, process and present the results.
manipulate tabular data without the need to use an SQL DB. With it, for example, it is easy to create a browser version of the iTunes application -- that looks and functions exactly like the iTunes App on the desktop. This includes multiple resizable, sortable and rearrangeable columns; the ability to issue calls (searches) to the online iTunes store...
I guess that this one reason I am frustrated by Chrome's lack of offline capability -- it's all been done before (apparently even with Google offerings like Gears).
Certainly, one should try to live within established standards! But standards are meant to evolve -- If you can popularize a needed feature/implementation, it can be incorporated into the standard.
I was contemplating the possibility of Google simply syncing this "Indexed DB" state between logon sessions (potentially on separate devices) but I don't think that would work as this DB may store large amounts of temporary data.
I think, to ensure a consistent user experience, Google will need to implement another API into a user’s Google account for 3rd party applications to store content and settings that can be synced between Chrome OS sessions.
I read through your test results and it looks like I came to the same conclusion that you did!
That's not to say I don't think Google can get this right. As long as they don't give up on ChromeOS (as jragosta mentioned above).
However the problem Google are trying to solve isn't unique to Google. The basic goal is to change a user’s digital life from being device-centric to cloud-centric.
That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device.
This is the essence of "post PC" and something both Apple and Microsoft are also working toward.
The main difference I see with Google is that they have chosen HTML and the browser as their client UI, where Apple and Microsoft are both aiming for thicker client sides.
We are pretty much in agreement!
"That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device."
says it all -- it shouldn't be either Cloud or Desktop, you choose -- I choose both.
I can see some real technical advantages to the Chrome OS approach, but I think it needs to co-exist with the desktop (as we know it) for several years, at least -- right now, the Emperor still wears his clothes
and it is the Tailor who is naked.
I would feel a lot better about Chrome OS's prospects if:
1) it weren't offered/positioned as a Jihad again Microsoft -- Chrome really needs
the capability to process Office files in and out, offline -- as well as process them online.
2) If it were sold, rather than partially given away. I prefer to pay for what I use -- rather than be subject to some unspecified, on-going use-tax (access to my information) that can change at any time.
My opinion is that if something cannot be sold or rented for a fair value, including warranty -- it aint worth using!