Looks better than a delete parameter. What do you mean with sync? Synchronized method?
Regards Johannes Am 26.01.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Andrus Adamchik: > >> On Jan 26, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Johannes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My motivation for introducing the delete parameter was, that your are >> not able to the treat orphaned objects with a delete rule. Please >> correct me, if its wrong. The delete rule is called only, if you trigger >> .delete(). If you just remove your relationship: no entity will be >> deleted. I guess this is the deletion question Michael Gentry was >> talking about. > > Good point about delete rules. You are absolutely right and I stand > corrected. Perhaps one other way to deal with deletions, is to return a > collection of removed objects from the method, leaving it up to the caller to > deal with them: > > // sync... > List<? extends DataObject> removed = > o.setToManyTarget(Artist.PAINTINGS.getName(), newPaintings, true); > > // delete ... or not > // o.getObjectContext().deleteObjects(removed); > > Andrus > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
