[GUMP@vmgump]: Project db-torque-runtime-test (in module db-torque) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project db-torque-runtime-test has an issue affecting its community integration. T

[GUMP@vmgump]: Project db-torque-runtime-test (in module db-torque) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project db-torque-runtime-test has an issue affecting its community integration. T

Re: location of save() methods

Hi Thomas, On 05.02.12 13:52, Thomas Fox wrote: > My personal opinion is that it would be more consistent if the save methods > were in the peer classes because almost all database-related operations are > already there and it would be possible to use the dbObject objects as pure > transport objec

location of save() methods

I'd like to turn your attention to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TORQUE-180 which is about whether the save() methods should be in the generated dbObject classes or in the peer classes or both. My personal opinion is that it would be more consistent if the save methods were in the peer cla

[jira] [Created] (TORQUE-180) It should be possible to have the save() method in peers insteda of in the dbObject classes

It should be possible to have the save() method in peers insteda of in the dbObject classes --- Key: TORQUE-180 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TORQUE-180