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 Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:06:05 GMT

Hi Ben.

I am a newbie just like you ;-) and went through similar 
questions.

when I did my research there was no patched village
available so I did patch it myself. (with help from
he mailing list though ;-)) The patches regarded CLOB handling
and the Date field handling that did not store the
time of a date. As far as I know, both patches are
now in the latest village jar.

I do not need BLOB support with my app, so I did not
look into it. But I guess, if you want to get it fixed
you need to have a look at the source and maybe write
your own BLOB handling. :-(

http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine-torque-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg00545.html



Joachim



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: BEN BOOKEY [mailto:brgbookey@hotmail.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. August 2003 20:16
> An: Apache Torque Users List; joachim@wemove.com
> Betreff: Re: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
> 
> 
> Hi joachim
> 
> Hope you are well, greetings from Darmstadt ! Here are some more newbie
> questions for you !!
> 
> I would prefer to have a torque working binary for our web-entry tool that
> supports BLOB. I dont really want to get involved in lots of patches and
> recompilations of source code!! We already have the latest village jar file
> downloaded inside torque lib directory. is this enough or have you editted
> the village source?
> 
> regards
> 
> Ben
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joachim Müller" <joachim@wemove.com>
> To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:55 PM
> Subject: AW: Toruqe supports BLOB ????
> 
> 
> >
> > 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