Andrus,
I agree that its important to have atomic deleteObject(), since otherwise not
only the deletion is unrecoverable, but potentially the entire change from the
last commit() point.
In the meantime, I will do manual validation before calling deleteObject().
With best regards,
Michael Gvirt
Hi Michael,
I agree with you point that it is reasonable for a user to expect an
atomic failure of "deleteObject". So I logged an improvement request
to re-implement this algorithm in 3.0:
https://issues.apache.org/cayenne/browse/CAY-866
I guess this wasn't deemed important on the assu
Hello,
I'm using combination of cascade / deny relationships, and trying to introduce
delete function. (I'm using version 2.)
In case a deny rule fires for one of the childs (within cascade chain), I would
expect deleteObject() to behave as transaction - i.e., not to do any change;
however it
