Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > >-10 > > > >The SQLTransformer provides a very good alternative to ESQL, it is in > >some use cases more flexible as it is a transformer and not a generator. > >And you don't need XSP to use it. > > > >The SQLTransformer in its current state is not a 1.x construct, it has > >been redesigned several times and works afaik absolutely perfect. It > >is used in production environments without any problems. > > > > > It is remarkably slower than ESQL. Okay if you feel this strongly about > it then thats fine. Would you > be against refactoring the two and moving the common constructs to > common classes as Vadim suggested? > No, refactoring sounds like a good idea as long as the SQLTransformer is not dependend on any XSP stuff.
Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
