db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoff Fortytwo <...@ign.com>
Subject Re: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
Date Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:49:31 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message