db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Müller <joac...@wemove.com>
Subject AW: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
Date Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:55:17 GMT

Hi Ben.

I do use CLOBs with oracle but had to apply a patch to 
do so. I think I read in the mailing list that the current
CVS version has this fix already.

actually it's in village, not in torque.

If you do not have an solution yet, contact me.


regards from frankfurt.

joachim/wemove


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: BEN BOOKEY [mailto:brgbookey@hotmail.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 4. August 2003 19:41
> An: Apache Torque Users List
> Cc: jmcnally@collab.net; bmclaugh@algx.net; frank.kim@clearink.com
> Betreff: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
> 
> 
> 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