Closed Bug 46078 Opened 24 years ago Closed 13 years ago

Bookmarks SQL Database

Categories

(SeaMonkey :: Bookmarks & History, enhancement, P3)

x86
Linux
enhancement

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 498596

People

(Reporter: jess, Unassigned)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: helpwanted)

Attachments

(1 file)

From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686; en-US; m16) Gecko/20000617 BuildID: 2000061714 A directory tree is no way to manage a large database of URLs. Better to incorporate a built-in [thin] SQL database for Bookmarks [and other things]. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Try to find a URL in a big Bookmarks tree. Try to find a URL in a really big Bookmarks tree. Actual Results: Expected Results: How often have you agonized over which pigeonhole a neat new URL belongs in and ended up making copies in several places? And then you still can't find it again! It seems strange that no browsers have replaced the intrinsically flawed organization of bookmarks by folders (in what amounts to a simple directory tree) by a database where URLs are located in SQL searches. Does anyone doubt that this is the right way to manage such data? Padraic Renaghan has written a nice tool called "bookmarker" (see http://renaghan.com/pcr/bookmarker.html ) that stores bookmarks in an SQL database (usually MySQL) and uses php tools to search and display them. However, installing bookmarker involves running your own httpd, MySQL or other SQL and php; this is too much to ask of a casual Web surfer. It is possible to run bookmarker server sites and let people sign up as users, but this doesn't satisfy the "God bless the child who's got his own" criterion. A browser should be able to stand alone. To "do it right" would probably require building the World's Thinnest SQL, but once that was done there are many other uses the browser could put it to. Mail comes immediately to mind. See http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/misc/199805/intertwingle.html - a project which I think could make good use of a built-in SQL. Thanks for listenin' -- Jess
You might want to attach RDF to your idea, but its a lot of work, confirming for future + helpwanted and assigning to nobody@mozilla.org
Assignee: slamm → nobody
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Keywords: helpwanted
Summary: Bookmarks SQL Database → Bookmarks SQL Database
Target Milestone: --- → Future
unsetting milestone on this. adding RFE to summary. bugs like this get more attention when they are accompanied by a patch.
Summary: Bookmarks SQL Database → [RFE] Bookmarks SQL Database
Target Milestone: Future → ---
I'm working on a project which does this. E-mail me at will_sargent@yahoo.com for more info.
Netscape Nav triage team: this is not a Netscape beta stopper.
Keywords: nsbeta1-
Summary: [RFE] Bookmarks SQL Database → Bookmarks SQL Database
*** Bug 179338 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
(In reply to comment #0) > A directory tree is no way to manage a large database of URLs. Better to > incorporate a built-in [thin] SQL database for Bookmarks [and other things]. I do not agree, incorporating a built-in SQL-database would be a bad idea. It would slow things down, and that only to manage bookmarks. I know bookmarks are very important for some people .. but still a SQL database is just to much.
Presumably this bug can be marked fixed now that SQLite is used for bookmarks and history storage (Places)?
(In reply to comment #8) > Presumably this bug can be marked fixed now that SQLite is used for bookmarks > and history storage (Places)? I'm looking forward to seeing it in SeaMonkey. (I am fond of an integrated browser + mail client.) If it is restricted to FireFox 3 (i.e. if SeaMonkey is orphaned) I may have to grit my teeth and cope with the loose coupling between FireFox and ThunderBird, but I'd rather not. Anyway I guess the real work has been done, and I'm prepared to be very grateful as soon as I can use the results. In the interim I have pretty much resigned myself to treating Bookmarks as a "bag of marbles" repository; otherwise it got to be more work to remember which [sub](sub){sub}folder(s) I stuck things in. I wonder: did my original suggestion have anything to do with the development of Places with SQLite, or was it just an idea whose time came? Either way, thanks!
QA Contact: claudius → bookmarks
Isn't SQLite now used also in SeaMonkey?
> Isn't SQLite now used also in SeaMonkey? Yes.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: