One of the annoying things about Torque is that you have all of the BaseXxx files mixed in with your extensions objects. The Base/Extension idea is great, but it just sucks having both files in the same dir.
Scarab and Fulcrum keep the src tree clean by generating the files off in a target/src-style directory. This works fine, but I'm not all too keen on it, especially when you go to use an editor like Eclipse. So I've been thinking about different approaches to getting the BaseXxx source files in a different dir. I was debating two approaches: - Having Torque compile all of the BaseXxx source files into the same om package, but put them in projectname-base-torque.jar or something of the sort. Initially I thought this'd be really cool as you could just reference the jar from your editor/build process and not worry about the BaseXxx source files being in the src tree (Torque would compile them off in a temp dir and then bring them back in). Another pro is that not everyone who wanted to build the system would need Torque...they could use reference the jar. ...But I don't know if people'd actually be in such a situation. But then you have an extra jar to move around and Torque has to been extending to also compile, not just generate code. So while I still think this would be very cool, I don't know if it's as practical. - The more practical solution, as I see it, is just to have Torque generate the BaseXxx files in a separate package, e.g. com.company.om.base, modeling the com.company.om.map. The upshot is that it's really simple, but helps keep the source tree at least a little bit cleaner. Torque works great for my current project, I'm just trying to think of ways to make it cooler and easier to use. Does either the separate jar or base package idea sound any good? Thanks, Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
