On the commit. What I have is something similar to the following: A -- 1:* -- B |--- 1:1 -- B (default) |--- 1:* -- C |--- 1:1 -- C (default)
Odd schema, I know. What I have is a Cascade set up on A to delete all B and C, since they really shouldn't exist without an A. On the two default fields, I have "No Action" set up. What I'm seeing is some cases where it deletes all Bs then all Cs then all As and everything works fine. Sometimes though, it deletes all Bs then all As and fails because Cs cannot exist without As. Looking at the object store, the deletes for C exist, but they're further down than the As. But, I do have a circular dependency here, so perhaps that is the root of the problem. If that be the case, I can either fix it with DB rules or by foregoing the delete rules in Cayenne and using lifecycle callbacks. -- Kevin On 10/22/07 4:56 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin, > > what kind of problems? During the deletion or the subsequent commit? > > If that's on commit, the ordering is determined using dependency > graph analysis with AshwoodEntitySorter (i.e. not dependent on the > order of delete rules processing). It works well except for circular > relationships. > > Andrus > > > On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Kevin Menard wrote: >> Howdy. >> >> I've just run into an issue with some of my cascading delete >> rules. Trying >> to reproduce the problem has been difficult because the ordering >> seems to be >> non-deterministic. Looking at the source, it looks like the delete >> operations are stored in a Map that has no internal ordering of the >> keyset. >> >> DataContextDeleteAction#deleteNew() and >> DataContextDeleteAction#deletePersistent() also process the delete >> rules in >> a different order. As it turns out, it may not matter much. >> >> Is this assessment accurate? If so, we probably should always process >> delete rules first, then the current node, using a DFS to handle the >> creation of the delete queries. If the assessment is not accurate, >> any help >> in understanding what may cause spurious issues with cascading >> deletes would >> be appreciated. >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Kevin >> >> > --
