Martin Jericho wrote: >This mailing list has very low volume. > I think one of the reasons it is low volume is that some torque issues often come up and are resolved on the turbine mailing list. Personally I store all the turbine and torque mails in one folder, so I hadn't noticed the low volume.
>Torque is still a long way from being a stable, fully featured product suitable for >the masses. Are people moving to other tools such as Castor and JDO? > I'm pretty committed to torque, I think it will just take a bit more time for it to become fully independent from turbine. I would also imagine that it hasn't really got going yet. The time to assess whether the mailing list is low volume will be once a stable release comes out, and while that might take a little while I'm going to keep on working on/with torque. Interestingly (or perhaps not), I've incorporated a version of Torque into my own project (NeuroGrid) and by including the appropriate jars I get all the functionality I need. I probably won't try and upgrade the torque code in the project until a stable release, but as long as I'm getting the functionality I need I won't worry too much when that is. As individual problems come up I'll write patches to fix them and submit them (as I did with Criteria/Criterion and/ors). I guess what I'm saying is a stable release might take some time, but there are people who are quietly commited to torque. CHEERS> SAM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
