Hi Abe, On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Abe White wrote:
- When you delete a parent object and the operation cascades to children, the object-level operation order is delete parent, then delete children.In my experience, the cascade should delete the children first. This solves 99% of the cascade delete issues.It seems to me you'd just have the exact same problem when forward foreign keys (rather than inverse ones as in a one-many) are used.
I think that cascade delete is most commonly used where there is a one-to-possibly-zero relationship (with a [zero or one or many]-to- one on the other side). Thus, the other side has the foreign key, and the side with the cascade delete definition is the side with the existence that doesn't depend on the other side. So deleting the other side first usually solves the timing issues.
Or do you mean that cascading to a collection should delete the children first, but cascading through a to-one should not?
The side with the cascade delete is not the side with the foreign key that might be violated. So deleting the other side first should always work.
Register now for BEA World 2006 --- See http://www.bea.com/ beaworld<<
Thanks for the personal invitation. Craig
______________________________________________________________________ _ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return thisby email and then delete it.
Craig Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
