db-torque-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jme...@chubb.com
Subject RE: AbstractBaseManager vs. JDO Persistence Manager
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:41:22 GMT

> > Spring interfaces with JDO via the PersistenceManager.   I think the
> > is that there is one central access point into JDO through the
> > PersistenceManager.  Maxim has created some code that implements
> > PersistenceManager like functions for Torque.    Hopefully this will
let us
> > mirror the JDO design for the torque ORM package.  Spring tries to be
> > consistent in implementation and I think Thomas Risberg would approve
> > that design.
> Hm, if you would ask me for the most central place to interface with
> Torque I would use the generated Peer classes. I would not use BasePeer
> for it, because BasePeer cannot handle specific objects (for example,
> BasePeer does not know how to create a Book Object from a row of the BOOK

> table in the database, only BookPeer knows how to do that). What makes
> Torque different from most other Object-Relational managers is that
> uses very little reflection, but rather relies on generated classes, so
> there is no "central" class. If one insists that there should be _ONE_
> central class to access the database, this smells like trouble, I do not
> think Torque would fit very well into this approach. Probably one would
> do best to generate that central class as well. But this is just
> guesswork, there is a good probablility that I am wrong.

I think acccessing the generated Peer class is what Maxim's implementation
of the PersistenceManager can do.

Maxim is this correct?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message