I wrote those classes, and their main purpose was to handle databases like Ingres that don't support named parameters. With these classes parameters can be identified and ordered to provide correct SQL statements.Until someone finds a more efficient solution, I suggest to keep them :)
Pascal. jabber/gtalk: [email protected] msn: [email protected] On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 17:56, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: > It seem to me that by using plain strings instead of those classes would be > more efficent. > > But may be I'm missing something, so before starting a refactoring which > could be really complex and had great impact on the existing code, I'd like > to know why it's has been designed so. > > Can anyone explain me what I'm missing? > > > Giacomo > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
