> Question 1: Is there a way to maintain the CamelCase of the tables
> inside of the torque classes? ex: If I have a table named
> accountTypes I get classes such as AccounttypesBase, AccounttypesPeer
> and Accounttypes.
> Is it possible to get proper casing out of Torque like
> AccountTypesBase?
See docs:
<table name="accountTypes" javaName="AccountType">
...
</table>
> Question 2: We are considering integrating with Torque and the object
> model it creates more tightly. Currently we don't use the generated
> classes much at all besides querying the database then pulling the
> information out of the objects and translating it into something more
> usable from a java perspective.
Hmmm, perhaps Torque is not what you need. But I'm not sure if there is
a framework that puts your database tables in a "usable java
perspective". Torque isn't able to understand the background of your
database design.
> [...]
> example:
> say there is a OM class called Account that relates to Company in the
> database. Is there a way to get an Account object with a List
> of Company
> instead of a List of Account each one containing a Company object.
I'm a little bit confused about that example. Has Account a foreign key
to Company...
Then there will never be more then one company for one account.
... or is there something like a link table between Account and Company
(f.e. AccountCompanyAssignment)?
Then make a select with the account in the AccountCompanyAssigment and
join the companies. You will get a list of AccountCompanyAssignments.
Extract the companies from that list in a wrapper method in
AccountCompanyAssignmentPeer and return the list of companies:
public static List getCompanies(Account account) throws Exception {
Criteria criteria = new Criteria();
criteria.add(ACCOUNT_ID, account.getID());
criteria.addGroupByColumn(COMPANY_ID);
List result = doSelectJoinCompany(criteria);
List companies = new ArrayList();
for (AccountCompanyAssigment assignment : result)
companies.add(assigment.getCompany());
return companies;
}
> Question 3: I see that there is a way to join against related tables,
> and also a way to join against all related tables except a
> certain one.
> Perhaps it's a gross oversight on my behalf but is there a
> way to join
> against ALL relationships?
Create your own method by copying a doSelectJoinAllExcept*() method and
add the excepted related table. It's not difficult. I think there was
something in the documentation about this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
