Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
On May 17, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Arturo Perez wrote:
Going back and reading the question after all the follow ups out of
curiosity, I thought I'd ask a followup question.
1. If your database is so tiny/simple, why its Torque inadequate? (I
admit, it reminds me of ActiveRecord from Rails, without the excuse of
being a 1.0 release).
I didn't say it was inadequate. I said it didn't meet my needs :-) and
certainly not my aesthetic. I spent 3-5 hours day before yesterday
trying to figure out why a datetime column was being set to '0000-00-00
00:00:00'. I removed all references to the column from every piece of
the system I could find. I single stepped blind (i.e. no source)
through the code. Somewhere in Torque it decided to do a "SELECT *". I
have a pathologically aversion to _ever_ doing SELECT * within
applications. Ergo, out she goes.
I could do a better job with raw JDBC then the benefits offered by
Torque. This whole Entity + EntityPeer thing that Torque does seems
nonsensical. Now, like I implied, it could be that Torque itself is
fine but that the contractor used it in unnatural ways (wouldn't be the
first time). But I haven't seen anything about it that I actually like
either.
-arturo
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
