We have had to resort to deferred constraints for Oracle. For SQL Server we have had to disable the constraints. I am certainly interested in a more portable solution.
Dov Rosenberg On 2/19/08 10:37 AM, "Pierre Bernard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > Back in the day of WO 4.5 to WO 5.1, I worked on a project where we > relied on EOF's capability to order database operations. Actually we > even extended the mechanism using a database context delegate to apply > further sorting to already sorted operations. > > On more recent projects, I always set contraints to be deferrable and > was thus not bothered by problems of operation ordering. > > Today, I get a call from a former colleague who wants a new project to > be set up like past common project: non deferrable constraints. > It turns out that on WO 5.2 this doesn't seem to work as expected. The > database complains as the operations are not correctly ordered. > > Did WO 5.2 break operation ordering? Has it become optional? > > (I have not seen the EOModel in question. I wonder if it has circular > references which may prevent proper ordering.) > > Show of hands: who uses deferrable constraints, who relies on > operation ordering? > > Pierre > > - - - > Houdah Software s. à r. l. > http://www.houdah.com > > HoudahGeo: One-stop photo geocoding > HoudahSpot: Powerful Spotlight frontend > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/drosenberg%40inquira.com > > This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
