I think as a sub-project of Torque is probably a good idea taking into consideration all the conversation in regards to this. On the one hand, you have the high level OR concept which should be used, should being the important term here. But on the other hand, a person should be able to use a more direct lower level API. Both having the important similarility of being database independent.
Travis ---- Original Message ---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2002-04-22 To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Subproject Proposal - crossdb 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]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
