John McNally wrote: >On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 22:33, Sam Joseph wrote: > > >>Okay, so I fixed my problem by changing >> >>TorqueObjectModelTask --> TorqueDataModelTask >> >> > >I have trouble understanding how making this change would help things. >These are different tasks, aren't they? > I'm not sure. I assumed that the name had been changed, since TorqueObjectModelTask no longer exists in the latest version of Torque
>>It would seem that some of the build*.xml files are out of date in cvs. >> >>So having made this change I was able to rebuild my project within the >>shell of the older torque, and all of my BaseXXXPeer classes have been >>updated. Of course, all my code built on top of that has List/Vector >>conflicts ... >> >>And the point of the Vector/List change was? I mean seems like a lot of >>changes are going to have to be made in XXXPeer classes, for what >>benefit exactly? >> >> > >Much better api. There were better alternatives to Vector added some >time ago and there has been agreement to switch for about as long as >these alternatives have existed. Someone finally did the work. > Yes, but I was wondering what the advantage of these alternative to Vector actually was. I mean I've heard people talk about Vectors thread-safety mechanisms not being required. Anyway, I'm just saying that any code built on torque will require a lot of changes, but then again perhaps not so many of us have been building on top of torque yet. I've built about three things that are all going to require rewrites (sorted one of them already), and I was interested to know what sort of advantage using List was going to give me over Vector, when both of them seem to support the same functionality. CHEERS> SAM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
