<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Daniel Rall wrote: > >> CrossDB and Torque are entirely different layers. There's no reason >> for someone to use CrossDB instead of Torque unless they're either a) >> trying to avoid or circumvent O/R entirely, or b) trying to build an >> O/R framework. > > I think (a) is a reasonably valid use case. There are people who prefer to > use SQL directly when talking with a database, without O/R. > There are people who prefer JDO, or EJB-based persistence, or ODBMS-es. > Some even want to use XML-databases ( whatever that is ). > > For those who prefer SQL, creating statements that will work on multiple > databases ( and get around various stupid implementations of the SQL > standard ) is a serious itch. > > I'm not sugesting we should accept crossdb - it still needs to pass other > criteria like 'community' and 'scope'. I personally don't think the 'itch' > is big enough for a top-level project - probably it would be much better > if crossDB would be proposed as a sub-project of either torque or commons.
It would be interesting to see it as a sub-project of Torque, and have it integrated on a branch. Just thinking out loud... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
