db-torque-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Fischer <fisc...@seitenbau.net>
Subject Re: torque 4
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:35:42 GMT
> >> Into another branch? I'm not too happy with this. We will need to
> >> support Village for some time to come and I imagine a nightmare if we
> >> try to keep all the documentation together.
> >>
> > 
> > No, I'd treat it as external reference (like some commons library). 
> > aim is to remove it anyway, so I do not think documentation is an 
> Just for the record: I would not like to throw Village away too
> carelessly. Some of the classes are really useful and only need some
> tweaking. We would need something like Value, Record or Column anyway.

I would not use these classes internally in Torque. In my opinion, they 
have problems (i.e. the Value class is not as good as converting Types as 
the db drivers, and the record class approach uses too much memory 
internally). I'd rather use the commons-dbutils approach internally.

That said, maybe it makes sense to still supply these objects to the user; 
but I fear that support will be weak if the concept is not used internally 
by Torque any more.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message