I agree that templates would have to implement what is currently done by Village, but the code would not be equivalent. The reason is that village does everything in a generic manner, for the reason that it has no knowledge of the data structures it is working with. But peers do know the structure of the data they are working with, the types and so on at code generation time, so that they can resolve most things at that time
Huge overhead On 24 November 2001 23:48, you wrote: > Generated or not, Peers need the functionality supplied by Village. > If Village were removed, Torque's Velocity templates would have to > generate code equivalent to Village <http://share.whichever.com/>. > > Fedor Karpelevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I believe this is purely historical thing from the times when Peers were > > not generated. Then it definitely made sense. I do not think it does now. > > > > I guess there was no response because subject was unclear. Anyone else > > has anything to say about it BTW? > > > >> From: Davis Kulis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > >> Just noticed your comment from Nov 2, and I was wondering, > >> was there any > >> feedback? At least I didn't notice any on list. Therefore I'm > >> posting to you > >> in private, as nobody else seems to be interested :) > >> > >> Right now I'm trying to learn/understand Torque, and I find myself > >> constantly wondering why they use Village! It's yet another level of > >> indirection/complexity which I have to learn/understand, > >> which IMHO is not > >> really needed. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
