I just started looking at OJB. While I like Torque's OM/Peer and code generation tool, OJB seems to have more features, especially its client/server model. Its PersistenceBroker API is a lot like Torque's OM/Peer. So it should be easy to migrate from Torque to OJB.
Howard Lin > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:56 AM > To: Turbine Torque Users List > Subject: Torque vs OJB > > > I've seen a number of discussions on the list lately > regarding OJB and the > future of Torque especially with respect to OJB. Is there > somewhere a good > comparison of why I should use one vs. the other? > > I've been using Torque because I like its code generation feature. I > realize it's not as sophisticated as some other solutions--in > particular, > how it handles many-to-many relations is kinda clunky--but it > gets the job > done fast, and it's far better than the solution it replaced (many > hand-coded, Peer-like persistence manager classes.) > > Is there a good reason to switch from Torque to OJB? Or > should I just go > straight for EJB and container-managed persistence? > > -- Bill > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
