db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Keeney, Thomas" <Keen...@SEC.GOV>
Subject RE: question on Torque's limitation
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:38:35 GMT
I have been using Torque for quite sometime.  Torque is a great tool for
it's intended purpose.  You can't compare Torque to .NET.  Torque is great
at promoting database independence and resolving the impedance mismatch
between objects and database.  And it's free.  .NET may have some more
powerful features, but why don't you try hooking it up to MySQL, SQL Server,
Oracle, and Sybase with almost no modification.  The point is you can't do
this with .NET, but Torque can do it.  As for outer joins, it is a problem
with Torque, but I have been able to work around it with more than one
query.  This may not be optimal, but if you design your caching correctly,
then it should not be a problem.  Or just use MySQL and you don't need a

As for the problem at hand, your query contains Oracle specific functions,
so just use executeQuery() for this condition.  However, you should find
great success using Torque with most of your other queries provided then
follow ANSI standards.


-----Original Message-----
From: a7b46501@telus.net [mailto:a7b46501@telus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:41 PM
To: torque-user@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: question on Torque's limitation

This is not a matter of how one thinks. It's a matter of can or cannot, and
to what degree of easiness and efficiency.
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
View raw message