Hi Herr I just list out some of the points I came across. 1) Castor support in-memory cache. You can supply the parameters on the mapping xml. Torque has yet to implement in-memory cache.
2) Torque helps you to generate quite a comprehensive set of java sources. Castor XML schema although would be able to do the same. But it is not directly usable by its Castor JDO. I have tried to use Torque's generated java sources, wrote a Castor mapping on it and actually run it against Castor. However, Torque's generated classes does not implement Serializable, so cannot be use to implement stateless session bean. 3) Castor JDO does not support inheritance and self referencing very well. I believe Torque has a better support in generating classes regarding this two aspects. Just some of my opinions :) Happy New Year ========== Ian Lim email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] homepage: http://www.webappcabaret.com/mallim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herr Mats Nyberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 06:20 AM Subject: Re: JDO versus Torque > interresting, > > i just found out about torque and am still trying to > figure out the maechanics but, > > could you (ian) tell me something about the > 'resrtictions' of castor vs torque? i didn't know > there were any ;) > > > (philip) i read on their site on the subject of EJB vs > JDO that EJB required byte code manipulation whereas > JDO didn't. would you elaborate on that? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Lim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:31 PM > To: Turbine Users List > Subject: Re: JDO versus Torque > > > Hi > > Not to be too restrictive. You can consider a strategy > 1. Torque > 2. Castor (if some of the restrictions is not a > concern to you) > > Before diving in to more primitive APIs... > > Regards > ========== > Ian Lim > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > homepage: http://www.webappcabaret.com/mallim > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phillip Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Turbine Users List" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 07:21 AM > Subject: Re: JDO versus Torque > > > > Their JDO implementation does bytecode manipulation > to mark classes as > > persistence, whereas, torque/peers is a code > generator. > > > > I have worked with JDO, castor and torque and at > this point I would > > recommend torque. > > > > At 02:01 PM 12/6/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >Does anyone have any experiences with JDO versus > Torque? > > > > > >I was playing with Forte as my IDE for my Turbine > projects, and ran > across > > >their information on Transaparent Persitence.. Is > JDO doing under > the > > >covers the same things that Torque does? > > > > > >Eric > > > > > >-- > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: > > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > -- > > 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]> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > ===== > Mats Nyberg > St Gr�br�dersgatan 3C > 222 22 Lund > SWEDEN > +46 (0)46 15 28 44 hem > +70 672 01 09 mobben > > > _____________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > se.yahoo.com > > -- > 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]>
