On 10/3/01 1:28 PM, "Dan Bachelder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I probably shouldn't have called it 1.0. The decoupled Torque has not been >> released and it is still use at your own risk. The size difference is due to >> the packaging of the templates in the JAR. The torque templates can be >> accessed from within JAR with some recent changes to Texen. > > okay.. that sounds good... how about compatibility in the OM and the Torque > libs between the decoupled version and the tdk version? Any issues there? Probably tons if you don't regenerate your OM. The schema should be fine but you'll have to regenerate your OM. > > On a related note: Is there a document somewhere that expresses the direction > the Peers and Torque stuff is going in? There lots in the archive. > I am trying to make a case for > Peers/Torque over TopLink and some other OR mapping tools.. Other than the > open source angle I am trying to find anything I can to help prop up my > arguments. Unfortunately open source isn't always a plus in the eyes of people > who make decisions. > > </dan> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl http://tambora.zenplex.org http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria http://jakarta.apache.org/commons --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
