Hi all, The cascadeDelete function traverses all relationships, both up and down. This appears counter intuitive to me. As far as I know, DBMS's cascade in one direction, down to records that are referencing the record being deleted. It looks natural to me if Transfer would have implemented a similar functionality. With the current implementation, this method is possibly very dangerous, because a delete of some record could clear out the whole database.
I know there is the depth argument, but my objects don't always know how deep to go. Also, a change in the data model might lead to a code change, which is what Transfer is abstracting. Can you explain why this method behaves as it does? Maybe with some examples where this behaviour is just what you need? I'm quite curious because I couldn't come up with one myself.... thanks for replying. Jeroen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" 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/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
