indexeddb

However, you're (mostly) not using IndexedDB directly anyway but a storage library, which supports IndexedDB, WebSQL and maybe localstorage as a fallback (e.g.

IndexedDB is another one - if mobile safari or rather just safari had a working implementation of IndexedDB some interesting offline applications would be possible.

But given the three bad choices, the question does arise: Was IndexedDB really the best of a bad lot?

However, there is or was a problem with how IndexedDb is specified to work that is not really compatible with promises.

And it might have been possible - surely Google and Microsoft, who supported IndexedDB, had the resource to write an alternative implementation.

IndexedDB API is a pain to use, because it's designed to be used directly.

Luckily, you can still access IndexedDB from a web worker on both platforms (if you are able to use Safari's partial implementation).

Users that wanted to could run the app full-time on their local machine, where the database would be leveldb instead of IndexedDB.

I'm writing code against indexedDB (which doesn't use promises), but I want to expose promises to my callers.

Shame on Apple for doing that and not fixing bugs in their IndexedDB implementation!

In 2009, a lot of very optimistic things were said about IndexedDB performance, adoption, usage on mobile, developer acceptance.

It's been 6 years, and I think it's safe to say that IndexedDB hasn't lived up to anyone's hopes.

I especially love the bit where they say IndexedDB is better than WebSQL because it has better "developer aesthetics", as if anyone is actually casually coding against IndexedDB without using some sort of wrapper or compatibility layer.

"we've got instead IndexedDB over WebSQL (which many devs choose to wrap)" It doesn't matter how developers choose to use IndexedDB, what does is for a Web standard to be sane and WebSQL never was.