Bill
BEN BOOKEY wrote:
Dear Bill,
We have tested using BC4J which uses Oracle JDBC driver behind the scenes, and we saved BLOBS no problem with a size aprox. greater than 15k. !! I am a little suprised !!
regards Ben
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Leng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Apache Torque Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
Add to Geoff's comment. It is confirmed that it works with datadirect's jdbc driver for Oracle. Oracle's thin jdbc driver does not work.
Geoff Fortytwo wrote:
If you're using oracle than it isn't possible to use blobs with torque. (except possibly if you use a driver that's not from Oracle. but that isn't confirmed)
At 10:40 AM 8/4/2003, you wrote:
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,
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 of
view of each indivual user. :)
I don't know, I think I would Torque rather see more tightly
coupled
with the RDBMS and dump the XML schema entirely.
if you have control over database structure and changes of the
database
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 dev
team.
My 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?
If you have to support different RDBMS the metadescription in some
"system
tables" will get useless.
Torque'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.
Thats what i'm talking about, we are working with torque this way
because we
have to deal with a couple of already existing databases. And yes, torques abstraction is somewhat of handy - thats why we
use it. :-)
Loose coupling means among other things to hide the physical
database
structure completely from the objects, which have to access the
database. A
layer (like torque) will then act as mediator between objects and
database.
So 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 at
application startup) would possibly be contradictory to the
generator BUT it
would also provide more independency from used database structure.
I'm not sure wheter this is a mainly intention of torque but i
would be glad
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]
-- Bill Leng Metatomix, Inc. Tel: (901)261-8911 Fax: (901)261-8901
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
-- Bill Leng Metatomix, Inc. Tel: (901)261-8911 Fax: (901)261-8901
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
