I confirm your feeling Jeroen. Yesterday I've tested the cascade delete and crash a lot of content in my db... grrr... The way the cascade is implemented today is quitely not usable even with the limit set. I've managed my own cascade delete through (the powerfull) actionBefore / AfterDelete TransferEvent...
Cheers - 2009/4/1 Jeroen Knoef <[email protected]> > > 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 > > > > -- Aurélien Deleusière Mobile : +33 (0)6 37 63 24 93 ad e-consulting l'expertise 2.0 104, Grande Rue - 92310 Sèvres Fax : + 33 (0)1 49 66 15 53 S.A.R.L. au capital de 8500€ R.C.S. Nanterre 50177609000018 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
