db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Leng <wl...@metatomix.com>
Subject Re: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
Date Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:39:26 GMT
In fact, I was able to save about 2M blob with oracle's thinjdbc driver. 
However, I cannot update the blob. That is why I tried datadirect's 
driver with witch I can save and update upto about 9M blob. I have not 
tried anything bigger than 9M.

Bill

BEN BOOKEY wrote:

> Dear Bill,
> 
> We have tested using BC4J which uses Oracle JDBC driver behind the scenes,
> and we saved BLOBS no problem with a size aprox. greater than 15k. !!  I am
> a little suprised !!
> 
> regards
> Ben
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Leng" <wleng@metatomix.com>
> To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
> 
> 
> 
>>Add to Geoff's comment. It is confirmed that it works with datadirect's
>>jdbc driver for Oracle. Oracle's thin jdbc driver does not work.
>>
>>Geoff Fortytwo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you're using oracle than it isn't possible to use blobs with torque.
>>>(except possibly if you use a driver that's not from Oracle. but that
>>>isn't confirmed)
>>>
>>>At 10:40 AM 8/4/2003, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear List and Torque Developers,
>>>>
>>>>Not much activity on this list is there??  :)
>>>>
>>>>The http://db.apache.org/torque/dtd/database_3_1.dtd  indicates that
> 
> BLOB
> 
>>>>are a valid torque data type.
>>>>
>>>>It possible to save an image to a blob with the current version ? Could
>>>>someone give a small example. We have done this using BC4J and with
>>>>JDBC on
>>>>its own, does the current version of torque help me?
>>>>
>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ben bookey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Michel Beijlevelt / Lucka" <mbe@lucka.nl>
>>>>To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
>>>>Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:42 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: different internal variable names
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Howdy,
>>>>>
>>>>>the opinion about  tight or loose coupling is also influenced by the
>>>>>frequency of changes in the RDBMS schema.
>>>>>
>>>>>If my application is - through Torque - tightly coupled with the
> 
> RDBMS,
> 
>>>>>it will almost certainly fail with an exception upon a moderately
>>>>>significant change in the RDBMS. Which is good, because it will
>>>>>precisely pinpoint the change, and makes 'sure' (well, fairly sure
> 
> that
> 
>>>>>is :-) that my appliction only runs against the RDBMS that is was
>>>>>designed for and none other.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I agree, having the possibility of  making Torque more loosely
>>>>>coupled from the RDBMS would be a nice feature. It could be
> 
> implemented
> 
>>>>>by allowing specifying aliases for db objects in the XML schema
>>>>>definition which does seem to be fairly simple to implement, but
>>>>
>>>>maybe a
>>>>
>>>>>more sophisticated abstraction layer isn't that hard to make either.
>>>>>
>>>>>gr. Michel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Manske, Michael wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>i knew that such a discussion would come up and it depends on the
>>>>
>>>>point
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>>>view of each indivual user. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't know, I think I would Torque rather see more tightly
> 
> coupled
> 
>>>>>>>with the RDBMS and dump the XML schema entirely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>if you have control over database structure and changes of the
>>>>
>>>>database
>>>>
>>>>>>structure, then you will
>>>>>>perhaps prefer a strict coupling. But if not (like me), you will
>>>>
>>>>always
>>>>
>>>>>>prefer loose coupling to be more independent of changes made by
>>>>
>>>>another
>>>>dev
>>>>
>>>>>>team.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My RDBMS already has a schema, which would be the metadatabase
in
> 
> the
> 
>>>>>>>systems tables. So why create another definition in XML of the
same
>>>>>>>database and tables?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you have to support different RDBMS the metadescription in some
>>>>
>>>>"system
>>>>
>>>>>>tables" will get useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Torque's capability of abstraction of the RDBMS-specific
>>>>>>>isssues comes
>>>>>>>in quite handy here. The process could be automated by having
> 
> Torque
> 
>>>>>>>generate the XML definition from a JDBC conncection, and then
>>>>>>>generate
>>>>>>>the om from that XML, but I haven't tried that yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thats what i'm talking about, we are working with torque this way
>>>>
>>>>because
>>>>we
>>>>
>>>>>>have to deal
>>>>>>with a couple of already existing databases.
>>>>>>And yes, torques abstraction is somewhat of handy - thats why we
>>>>
>>>>use it.
>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>>>>Loose coupling means among other things to hide the physical
> 
> database
> 
>>>>>>structure completely from the objects, which have to access the
>>>>
>>>>database.
>>>>A
>>>>
>>>>>>layer (like torque) will then act as mediator between objects and
>>>>
>>>>database.
>>>>
>>>>>>So if you would have problematic identifiers like "short", you
>>>>
>>>>would be
>>>>
>>>>>>easily able to map them to another name, which could then be used
>>>>
>>>>in java
>>>>
>>>>>>objects, e.g. map "short" to "short_descr".
>>>>>>There is already some kind of support for this but at the moment it
>>>>
>>>>isn't
>>>>
>>>>>>suitable at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I guess torque is so popular because of his abilities to generate
>>>>
>>>>more or
>>>>
>>>>>>less useable code and the usage of a xml schema at runtime
>>>>
>>>>(respectively
>>>>at
>>>>
>>>>>>application startup) would possibly be contradictory to the
>>>>
>>>>generator BUT
>>>>it
>>>>
>>>>>>would also provide more independency from used database structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not sure wheter this is a mainly intention of torque but i
>>>>
>>>>would be
>>>>glad
>>>>
>>>>>>if the devs would expand
>>>>>>support for loose coupling (at least for mapping of table/column
>>>>
>>>>names to
>>>>
>>>>>>java names) in future versions...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>regards,
>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PS: pros and cons of loose coupling will always be a matter of
> 
> opinion
> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>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
>>
>>--
>>Bill Leng
>>Metatomix, Inc.
>>Tel: (901)261-8911
>>Fax: (901)261-8901
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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

-- 
Bill Leng
Metatomix, Inc.
Tel: (901)261-8911
Fax: (901)261-8901


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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