on 8/30/01 2:56 PM, "Atul Dambalkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I thought, it may be just an over-kill as the schema is pretty simple
> and there are no complex database operations like inner/outer joins...
>
> -Atul
Torque works well in both situations.
The benefit of Torque isn't in
At 01:56 PM 8/30/01 -0700, you wrote:
>on 8/30/01 10:32 AM, "Atul Dambalkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am thinking about concentrating on defining such a schema that will get
> > easily mapped on to all databases, no SEQUENCE or any proprietary database
> > specific stuff, and follow Tu
on 8/30/01 10:32 AM, "Atul Dambalkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am thinking about concentrating on defining such a schema that will get
> easily mapped on to all databases, no SEQUENCE or any proprietary database
> specific stuff, and follow Turbine by defining a separate ID_TABLE to store
>
Hi David,
At 10:57 PM 8/29/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Atul,
>
>Look at Torque. It will generate a lot of the code that you need.
I am thinking about concentrating on defining such a schema that will get
easily mapped on to all databases, no SEQUENCE or any proprietary database
specific stuff, an
