> That would make sense to me as well. I indeed want > the entries in the PAGE table to remain there. I also thought there > should be no need in the .orm file to specify anything specific (like a > cascade delete) in order to have the corresponding entries in BOOK_PAGE > being deleted as well, according to the spec. The reason I asked is that > my current jdo vendor requires me to do this and is not convinced the > spec is clear about this.
The (JDO2) spec is clear enough IMHO, and the TCK is there to enforce the spec. Is your current vendor passing the JDO2 TCK? If the vendor is not convinced the spec is clear then they should raise it with the EG, and Apache JDO. If they have an issue with a TCK test then they can raise a CHALLENGE on the test in question. Very well defined process. If there is "dependent-element" specified as true on the <collection> then the elements will also be deleted. If not, then it defaults to false and the elements won't be deleted, just removed from the collection (hence any join table entry removed). If it was a FK relation then the FK would be nulled when dependent-element was false. HTH -- Andy (Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)
