On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 06:44, Rana Bhattacharyya wrote: > Hi, > For one of my project I am using torque (well > almost). After going through the torque sources, I > decided to use a subset of torque. I have copied some > parts of the code, modified, tested. You guys are > doing a really great job. > > But it seems the codebase is not stable yet. > Here are my observations and what I did with sources: > 1. I have removed all village stuff.
Village is a useful but thin layer over jdbc. But as torque removes the need to use either directly, I have considered removing the dependency, but it has always seemed like too much work with too little benefit. Did you keep the PreparedStatement's used by village? > > 2. I got rid of org\apache\torque\om\* classes. > Not sure what this buys you. So you are saying you do not wish to have an OID class that uniquely identifies your objects. I think it is good to have this abstraction, so that you can have methods that take an ObjectKey to create the object. It might be a better api, if the properties which use the column names returned the column type, but getPrimaryKey() should return an ObjectKey. > 7. From programming point of view DB should return > IdGenerator. But the Idgenerator id, object etc. are > really confusing. Can you explain this further? john mcnally -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
