On 4/18/06, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I replaced the event model to facilitate cascading saves and basically > everything that's new with the iterator.
Figured. > About the user.getAddress().delete()... I suppose it's obvious I know it's > dangerous if you look at the code. There's a comment that reads as follows: > > <!--- delete the parent. (By running the next line of code you agree not to > sue Doug if something goes horribly wrong.) ---> > > So... yea, dangerous. I do not intend for this to remain as such forever. OK. Good to know. Right now it would be unusable in most applications, I believe, since it would cascade *UP* which is definitely not good. Cascading *down* is fine (as long as there is an option to *not* do it). > > // assume parent/foo/bar > > foo = parent.getFoo(); > > bar = parent.getBar(); > > foo.delete(); > > // parent and foo are deleted, bar is orphaned > > Yup. I'm not stuck on it. What do you think this should do? If foo really is a dependent object (i.e., parent requires foo and foo requires parent), then I think it should be an error to delete foo (or bar). Deleting parent should delete foo and bar (if casading deletes is enabled). I just don't think you should be able to delete from the bottom up. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
