Humberto Hernandez Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why? The big selling point of Torque to me is the ease of using >> Velocity templates. > >To me a big selling point of Torque was that it was already integrated with >Turbine and I didn't have to look for, evaluate and integrate another >product. It was an All-In-One vs a Best-Of-Breed decision. Likewise, I >didn't choose Struts because it didn't have Torque and all the other >services integrated.
I chose Torque for exactly the same reasons. I liked the way Torque generated classes that handled the relationships between tables automatically, but I had my doubts about it overall, especially since it lacked any thought of cacheing at that time. So I tried to hedge my bets by limiting the use of Torque within the application by hiding its usage behind a facade. I never extend OM classes or add business logic to the existing OM extensions. I delegate to them within business objects that expose a more restricted API than Torque does. That has turned out to be rather difficult to implement properly. When combined with badly designed legacy database schema, the resulting code can be very ugly. - Chris __________________________________________________________________ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
