db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "BEN BOOKEY" <brgboo...@hotmail.com>
Subject Toruqe supports BLOB ????
Date Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:40:30 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message