On 2000.12.04 17:27:48 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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?
Hmmm yes - I see what you're saying. I figured it might not fit in with
your vision for Torque, which is why I asked.
Now actually the implements= attribute does need to be on a table by table
basis for my requirement - I want to be able to factor out common columns.
For instance where I have a table of entities with names, I always call the
name column 'NAME'. Then I can specify that the BaseObject subclass
implements a 'Named' interface with a getName() method, and pass around
arrays of Named. Any other ideas about how I might achieve generalised
access to the name column are welcome.
Having thought about it, for this particular need a toString() method would
do it if there were some way of specifying what should go in its
implenentation in the schema. What about if the table tag had a nameColumn
attribute? This would be language/application neutral, and whatever was
processing the schema could make whatever use of it it wished...
Thoughts?
--
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
