Closed
Bug 46078
Opened 24 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Bookmarks SQL Database
Categories
(SeaMonkey :: Bookmarks & History, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 498596
People
(Reporter: jess, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: helpwanted)
Attachments
(1 file)
(deleted),
text/html
|
Details |
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
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 2•24 years ago
|
||
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
Comment 3•24 years ago
|
||
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 → ---
Comment 4•24 years ago
|
||
I'm working on a project which does this. E-mail me at will_sargent@yahoo.com
for more info.
Comment 5•24 years ago
|
||
Netscape Nav triage team: this is not a Netscape beta stopper.
Keywords: nsbeta1-
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 179338 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
(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)?
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
(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!
Updated•16 years ago
|
QA Contact: claudius → bookmarks
Comment 10•13 years ago
|
||
Isn't SQLite now used also in SeaMonkey?
Comment 11•13 years ago
|
||
> 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.
Description
•