On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Uwe Grauer wrote:
> It is a bug.
> If dabo would first try to delete the child and after that the parent,
> the database ref constraints wouldn't be violated.
It is not a bug.
If you set up your RI correctly, there would be no problem.
> Not both?
> Is this your definition?
> You are totally wrong here.
>
> Look at what referential integrity is:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_integrity
Uwe, perhaps this is a language thing, but this is terribly
insulting. I'm hoping that you don't mean to sound that way. I've
been working with data for a long, long time, and am familiar with
basic stuff like RI.
Dabo allows databases that don't have native RI to create their RI
at the bizobj level. If you have RI built into the database, then you
shouldn't be trying to duplicate it at the bizobj level.
When this code was first created, the majority of users were using
MySQL ISAM tables, which do not support RI, so the defaults were set
to what made the most sense for them. Perhaps, given the much greater
number of backends out there that we support that can handle RI
themselves, we should change the default to turning RI in the bizobj
off. Anyone who relies on this being on will have to explicitly set
it on, or their code will break. Thoughts?
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev
