On 17/04/2008, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Eric Ongerth wrote: > > > > > On Apr 16, 7:24 am, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> always use "delete" cascade in conjunction with "delete-orphan". It > >> doesnt make much sense to have delete-orphan only and not "delete" > >> cascade. > > > > Oh wow. That clears up a few things for me. I don't remember ever > > seeing this (or at least I don't remember taking this sense of things > > away after reading) in the documentation. Maybe I developed a blind > > spot back around 3.something and never got past it? I have simply > > been avoiding delete-orphan although I looked forward to figuring out > > how to use it without errors some day. I think this was the key fact > > that I missed, even though as you pointed out it's kind of the only > > way that makes sense. > > > it *could* make sense as this thing that will scan a whole set of > referenced entities for a link, but thats just not what we have > implemented right now (and also im less certain about what the real > use case there is).
For my part, my-use case is that I want to be able to delete an entry from my mapper table (the friendshipTable in my example code), and have it collect any of the mapped entries (dogTable) that are no longer mapped. Not sure if it's a common use-case. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
