db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manske, Michael" <Michael.Man...@dat.de>
Subject AW: AW: javaName instead of column name
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:18:30 GMT
Hi,

> in my opinion, using different names for attributes in your 
> application and in 
> your database is a really Bad Idea, because it does nothing more than 
> confuse. why would you need this?
because we work with more than one database delivered in release cycles by
another
team. every db release comes with changes in column naming and we do not
have influence on that :-(
with every db release we will have to change our torque objects. other
persistance layers provide "loose coupling" but we are convinced of torque
and dont want to leave torque. maybe "loose coupling" will be a feature for
one of the next versions of torque?

Michael

> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: peter riegersperger [mailto:rick@subnet.at]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2003 12:13
> An: Turbine Torque Users List
> Betreff: Re: AW: javaName instead of column name
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thursday 03 April 2003 12:03, Manske, Michael wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > seems as nobody cares that problem :-)
> > Ok, i will explain why i think that is really important:
> [...]
> > Conclusion: Torque's O/R mapping through peers and the xml-schema
> > presupposes non-changing clolumn name in database. Torque 
> does not provide
> > "loose coupling" between java objects and database.
> 
> i might be mistaken, but i suppose javaName was more or less 
> meant as a 
> "cosmetic" thing to deal with capitalization?
> (at least, that's how i use it)
> in my opinion, using different names for attributes in your 
> application and in 
> your database is a really Bad Idea, because it does nothing more than 
> confuse. why would you need this?
> 
> rick

Mime
View raw message