db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Lowe <mark.l...@talk21.com>
Subject Re: question on Torque's limitation
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:00:57 GMT
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 18:41 Europe/London, a7b46501@telus.net  
wrote:

> This is not a matter of how one thinks.

That's simply not true.. else we wouldn't be using java now would we..  
And i maintain that you mode of thought is effecting the solutions that  
you CAN'T seem to find.

>  It's a matter of can or cannot, and
> to what degree of easiness and efficiency.

That would depend how easy wouldn't it.. And what or who CAN'T and can..

> If Torque's OM can solve the issue I stated without multiple db hits  
> for
> performance's sake, I wouldn't mind to think in terms of OM. But if OM
> cannot match the flexibility of SQL, which is what Torque is trying to
> replace as API, then it is fruitless no matter how hard you think in
> Torque's way.
> Torque OM simply cannot live up to such a modest expectation.
> In fact, I would be open to another OM tool, lest to say breaking  
> Torque's
> OM.
> From my investigation, Torque's limitation is molded in its design.  
> Torque's
> OM is built out of a Table of a database. Comparing with Microsoft's  
> .Net's

I'm not even going to answer that.. Now I understand what the problem  
is.. I'm sure all the folks who develop torque are really happy about  
you generous feedback...

> dataset OM, which can be built out of an ad hoc query and modified at  
> design
> time in the format of XML, the technology lag of Torque is apparent.
>
> Fred
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Lowe" <mark.lowe@talk21.com>
> To: "Turbine Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:39 AM
> Subject: Re: question on Torque's limitation
>
>
>> I'm also pretty new to torque but resorting to SQL breaks the model..
>>
>> My understanding is that you should have to think in terms of SQL but
>> in terms of the object model, which is the whole point. I'll have a
>> look over the documentation, but I'd be very disappointed if it was  
>> the
>> case that you'd have to do this. From what I've seen so far the api
>> would only be more complex than it needs if you're still thinking in
>> SQL rather than Objects.
>>
>> My money is on all this being possible without breaking any design
>> patterns (e.g. resorting to sql). I'll drop another posting when I've
>> taken a look and can be more helpful.
>>
>> Cheers mark
>>
>> On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 09:34 Europe/London, Sam Le Berrigaud  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am also quite new to Torque. But what I think I would is not use
>>> Criteria to do so, I would rather use the executeQuery method in  
>>> which
>>> you can write your own SQL with no problem. Maybe you could also try
>>> to write your own criteria as shown in criteria how-to in the section
>>> simplifying Criteria.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> SaM
>>>
>>> a7b46501@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Suppose I have an Oracle table called A and a table called A_TR (TR
>>>> stands for translation) for multi-language support. These two tables
>>>> contain following columns respectively:
>>>> A.ID (pk), A.NAME
>>>> A_TR.ID(pk, fk to A.ID), A_TR.LOCALE (pk), A_TR.NAME
>>>>
>>>> If I want to get A_TR.NAME if it is available, othwise use A.NAME.
>>>> Using SQL, I can get it pretty easily:
>>>> select nvl(A_TR.name,A.name) as name from A, A_TR where
>>>> A.id=A_TR.id(+) and lower(A_TR.locale(+)) = lower('en-us')
>>>>
>>>> But it seems in Torque this will be awefully complex if not
>>>> impossible (unless I resort back to brute force SQL). The
>>>> complication arises from:
>>>> 1. Creteria doesn't support outer-join
>>>> 2. The peer class doesn't support ad hoc SELECT clause. I can only
>>>> get the columns within a table. Combining columns in two tables with
>>>> Oracle function such as NVL is almost impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Since I am new to Torque, I would like confirmation if these indeed
>>>> are limitation of Torque. Is there any get-around that doesn't need
>>>> multiple db hit (don't take query cache into account)?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>> -
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message