On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Daniel Rall wrote: > CrossDB and Torque are entirely different layers. There's no reason > for someone to use CrossDB instead of Torque unless they're either a) > trying to avoid or circumvent O/R entirely, or b) trying to build an > O/R framework.
I think (a) is a reasonably valid use case. There are people who prefer to use SQL directly when talking with a database, without O/R. There are people who prefer JDO, or EJB-based persistence, or ODBMS-es. Some even want to use XML-databases ( whatever that is ). For those who prefer SQL, creating statements that will work on multiple databases ( and get around various stupid implementations of the SQL standard ) is a serious itch. I'm not sugesting we should accept crossdb - it still needs to pass other criteria like 'community' and 'scope'. I personally don't think the 'itch' is big enough for a top-level project - probably it would be much better if crossDB would be proposed as a sub-project of either torque or commons. Just MHO, Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
