All of the cascade methods traverse the entire object graph. There is no "up" or "down" in an object graph, objects are related to other objects. How is Transfer supposed to know "which way" you think is "down"?
In essence, when it comes to deletes you almost certainly don't want to be using cascadeDelete, it's just far too dangerous unless you're absolutely sure what is going to happen. Either delete the items manually or rely on delete cascading in your database (and make sure you purge the cache as necessary). On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Jeroen Knoef <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
