On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Sean Legassick wrote:
>
> On 2000.12.04 16:34:57 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sorry about Torque, what you actually fixed I have working here. I
> > should have left it working in CVS and pushed in a complete fix.
> > I unexpectedly became preoccupied with something else :-) Thanks
> > for fixing it.
>
> No problem, it was an opportunity to have fun (!) finding my way around the
> implementation. Which reminds me - I have a patch to add an "implements"
> attribute to the table tag, which as you might expect specifies an
> interface that the BaseObject subclass will implement. Any objections?
I would honestly like to try and keep SQL generation neutral.
I'm not really liking the specifics being added to the schema
directly for the Peer-based OM model. For example, would there
not be a way to express the base class in a properties file?
The same goes for the ID Broker additions. I know that these
can be configured on a per table basis but does it happen
very often that these options do not apply to all tables?
If this is not the case, then can we come up with some other
way to express these preferences so that Torque that schema
can be used in other applications besides Turbine?
jvz.
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
