db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manske, Michael" <Michael.Man...@dat.de>
Subject RE: use of schema.xml varchar sizes
Date Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:47:30 GMT
> > (why would one want to move away from 
> > torque...)
> 1) going to an open standard (JDO) so that he (she) can 
> switch to another
> better product without lots of code changes ? 
> 
> 2) maybe finding a better ORMapping tool? Hope I will have 
> the time to check
> how Hibernate works (even though lots of people said is complicated to
> configure). By reading the documentation (Hibernate), I think 
> it's more
> powerfull and flexible than Torque... but this is only based 
> on what I have
> read (user manual and other stuff). 

Usually such comparisms and evaluations have to be done before a development
team make the decision for one ORMapping tool.

JDO support? if you need it then add it to torque and don't be scared imho
it wouldn't be that
huge efford to do so. :)
Anyway, if one can't change to another ORMapper than it's his fault not
torque's. Just implement a clean DAO pattern around torque or use some
delegates and interfaces and you can switch easily away from torque at a
later time.

I don't know any other ORMapper, which is that way customizeable as torque:
We added non-manager-based, cluster aware caching as well as deep collection
support (with setters and getters) for m:n relations. Also we use "virtual
relations" if we have to use pre-defined, old database schemas which don't
use relations where they should do because they are grown for ten or fifteen
years and we are not allowed to change the database structure.
With ant tasks based on torques data model task we generate XSD schemas, xml
aware transportable beans for frontend layers and as well for remote
services based on rmi and soap, etc...
If you know what you are doing, torque can be flexible as hell and for sure
much more flexible than hibernate or most other ORMappers. Maybe other
ORMappers will give you some enterprise features out of the box (and be sure
i used some of them in past) but all-in-all torque is a simple but mighty
engine - and i do prefer such solutions.
Sure if you prefer these "out-of-the-box-solutions" you may use toplink or
kodo or whatever, but if you want a really extendable open source tool,
which you can integrate nicely in source code generating build processes and
scalable runtime enviroments, then torque is your friend...

so long
Micha


Mit freundlichen GrĂ¼ssen

---------------------------------
Michael Manske
Projektleiter
Produkt-Entwicklung-Beratung I

Deutsche Automobil Treuhand GmbH
Helmuth-Hirth-Str 1.
73760 Ostfildern-Scharnhausen
Tel.: +49 (0)711 4503 159
Fax : +49 (0)711 4503 161
eMail: mailto:Michael.Manske@dat.de
Internet: http://www.dat.de
---------------------------------
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Dovlecel [mailto:alexandru.dovlecel@siemens.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:39 PM
> To: 'Apache Torque Users List'
> Subject: RE: use of schema.xml varchar sizes
> 
> 
> > (why would one want to move away from 
> > torque...)
> 1) going to an open standard (JDO) so that he (she) can 
> switch to another
> better product without lots of code changes ? 
> 
> 2) maybe finding a better ORMapping tool? Hope I will have 
> the time to check
> how Hibernate works (even though lots of people said is complicated to
> configure). By reading the documentation (Hibernate), I think 
> it's more
> powerfull and flexible than Torque... but this is only based 
> on what I have
> read (user manual and other stuff). 
> 
> What do you think, are those two good reasons? ;)
> 
> Alex 
> 
> 

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