Hey Dave, On Mar 06, 2009, at 07:40, David Avendasora wrote:
So if the only thing that Owns Destination does is cause the child to be deleted if the parent no longer exists but the Deny delete rule stops you from doing that, how can the Owns Destination setting have any meaning?
Not entirely correct. It's more meant to be used to handle situations in which you un-relate the two. So, the owner continues existing, but the owned EO is deleted because it was removed from the relationship.
Besides, if you are right then there is a bug in WO related to this. If I try to delete the parent with Owns and Deny set, I get the "undo manager is in invalid state, undo was called with too many nested undo groups" error I originally posted about. If I remove the Deny delete rule (and change nothing else), the deletion of the Parent completes without a problem.
This indeed sounds like a bug, but I think the expected behavior should be different then what you describe.
I believe that with the Owns and Deny set, if you have owned EOs you should not be able to delete the owner (should get an NSValidationException). According to the Deny rule contract. However, setting the delete rule to let's say Nullify should have the effect of Cascade. Because you delete the parent, it un-relates from the children, so they should be deleted too, according to the Owns contract.
It's not that I don't think there can be bugs in WebObjects, I just want to be sure that the combination of Owns and Deny is valid before I file a bug.
The way I see it, the two address separate issues and we should be able to use them together. In practice, I think in many cases it is appropriate to use Owns and Deny together.
F _______________________________________________ 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]
