If simple means that once the om-classes are generated, they are very easy to use with get, set and save, I agree.
Otherwise I don't really like the word simple. Too many projects use this word to describe them, from small libraries to extensive frameworks that rarely are simple to understand. The part about the generated code should definitely be the first point as this is a great feature with debugging and compiling as you mention Thomas. /Ludwig -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Fischer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: den 10 mars 2010 10:02 To: Apache Torque Developers List Subject: RE: What is Torque? In my opinion, the text above is quite good already. However, my personal focus would be more on what distinguishes Torque from other OR mappers. - extensible (hooks are provided for custom behavioor, e.g. modifying the templates, change behaviour of generated classes by inheritance) - simple (one should be able to understand whats going on by debugging the Torque code, so finding errors is easy). - generated code over reflection (thus easier to debug, compiler checks possible) (Some of the points above are already in Greg's text, but with a different point of view) I also second Thomas V's comment that the word OR-Mapper should appear somewhere. And the database independence should be in it (e.g. the sentence on the torque main page) Greg, would you like to do the merging or should I give it a try ? Once we have decided on a version, should we use this instead of the current "What is Torque" text on the web site ? Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
