martin
Joachim M�ller wrote:
Hi Ben.
I do use CLOBs with oracle but had to apply a patch to do so. I think I read in the mailing list that the current
CVS version has this fix already.
actually it's in village, not in torque.
If you do not have an solution yet, contact me.
regards from frankfurt.
joachim/wemove
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- Von: BEN BOOKEY [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 4. August 2003 19:41 An: Apache Torque Users List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
Dear List and Torque Developers,
Not much activity on this list is there?? :)
The http://db.apache.org/torque/dtd/database_3_1.dtd indicates that BLOB are a valid torque data type.
It possible to save an image to a blob with the current version ? Could someone give a small example. We have done this using BC4J and with JDBC on its own, does the current version of torque help me?
Kind regards,
Ben bookey.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Beijlevelt / Lucka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Apache Torque Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:42 PM Subject: Re: different internal variable names
Howdy,of
the opinion about tight or loose coupling is also influenced by the frequency of changes in the RDBMS schema.
If my application is - through Torque - tightly coupled with the RDBMS, it will almost certainly fail with an exception upon a moderately significant change in the RDBMS. Which is good, because it will precisely pinpoint the change, and makes 'sure' (well, fairly sure that is :-) that my appliction only runs against the RDBMS that is was designed for and none other.
But I agree, having the possibility of making Torque more loosely coupled from the RDBMS would be a nice feature. It could be implemented by allowing specifying aliases for db objects in the XML schema definition which does seem to be fairly simple to implement, but maybe a more sophisticated abstraction layer isn't that hard to make either.
gr. Michel
Manske, Michael wrote:
hi,
i knew that such a discussion would come up and it depends on the point
devview of each indivual user. :)
if you have control over database structure and changes of the databaseI don't know, I think I would Torque rather see more tightly coupled with the RDBMS and dump the XML schema entirely.
structure, then you will
perhaps prefer a strict coupling. But if not (like me), you will always
prefer loose coupling to be more independent of changes made by another
"systemteam.
If you have to support different RDBMS the metadescription in someMy RDBMS already has a schema, which would be the metadatabase in the systems tables. So why create another definition in XML of the same database and tables?
wetables" will get useless.
Thats what i'm talking about, we are working with torque this way becauseTorque's capability of abstraction of the RDBMS-specific isssues comes in quite handy here. The process could be automated by having Torque generate the XML definition from a JDBC conncection, and then generate the om from that XML, but I haven't tried that yet.
:-)have to deal
with a couple of already existing databases.
And yes, torques abstraction is somewhat of handy - thats why we use it.
ALoose coupling means among other things to hide the physical database
structure completely from the objects, which have to access the database.
database.layer (like torque) will then act as mediator between objects and
atSo if you would have problematic identifiers like "short", you would be easily able to map them to another name, which could then be used in java objects, e.g. map "short" to "short_descr". There is already some kind of support for this but at the moment it isn't suitable at all.
I guess torque is so popular because of his abilities to generate more or
less useable code and the usage of a xml schema at runtime (respectively
itapplication startup) would possibly be contradictory to the generator BUT
gladwould also provide more independency from used database structure.
I'm not sure wheter this is a mainly intention of torque but i would be
if the devs would expand support for loose coupling (at least for mapping of table/column names to java names) in future versions...
regards, Michael
PS: pros and cons of loose coupling will always be a matter of opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
