If you tend to lean more towards the UML side of things, then you could possibly collaborate with AXgen:
http://axgen.sourceforge.net/
Rgds,
Neeme
Stephen Haberman ::
>Do you think some of the template refactoring (proposed by Stephen >Haberman I think) should take place in this release, or wait for 4.0?I think template refactoring would be great; in doing so, I'll agree with Jon that OJB is not the-end-all-killer-tool, however, I think they have a much better (in terms of cross-database test cases, etc.) implementation of persistence than Torque currently has. Torque's strong point has always been code generation. I think it would be great of Torque to focus on just that and offload all of the persistence baggage to OJB where they have a dedicated team doing solely that. Assuming this happens, Torque could fall back on generating the nice om layers it always has, except easier and with more reliable results. And it also leads Torque towards doing more generation, e.g. of UI's (both AWT/Swing/SWT-based and Turbine-based), as Martin was saying he'd really like as a feature. At that point it'd also be really awesome to explore the possibilities of round trip engineering (e.g. of the om data layer and UI's). I'm a bit na�ve in knowing exactly how useful it would be, I just think it sounds awesome (I ran a TogetherSoft trial a year or so ago and was really impressed by what the round-trip engineering, if done correctly, could do). So, I guess in the long run I'd really like to see Torque mature into pseudo-UML generation/reverse-generation framework. Kinda like ArgoUML, but without the GUI, and ideally a real nice implementation and integration between features like data layer and UI generation. Dunno; with my current lurking status, my opinion is of little weight, but I just thought I'd put in my two cents. Thanks, Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
