"Russell Edens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is another approach. Since SQL does not map to OO cleanly. Define SQL in
> XML and then generate objects to use from java.
That's a very interesting idea. Have you implemented it? If so, what
are the pros and cons you've encountered vs. Java-based SQL
definition? It could probably be rigged to generate compile errors
for schema changes, just as Torque-based SQL does...
> Think of it as an extension to torque. The difference in this approach to
> torque is that the SQL is hand written and then the objects are generated off
> that (instead of off the tables). So you can execute the exact SQL you want.
Huh. I'm quite partial to the way that Torque currently functions.
An extension would be good, but I would like to preserve the existing
functionality as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
