Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Original comment by max.r...@gmail.com
on 19 Aug 2009 at 1:27
I ran the same test using the DataNucleus rdbms plugin and got similar behavior
- the
child is not deleted. This is sort of confirmed by what is written here:
http://www.datanucleus.org/products/accessplatform_1_1/jdo/orm/cascading.html
The reason this makes more sense for RDBMS than App Engine is that we currently
query
for the child side of an owned one-to-one via ancestor query, so the child that
was
"deleted" still hangs around. Probably not going to fix this for now. When we
start
storing child refs on the parent we can revisit.
Original comment by max.r...@gmail.com
on 19 Aug 2009 at 4:54
Or the user could just set that field as dependent field, so as per the JDO
spec then
Original comment by googleco...@yahoo.co.uk
on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:37
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
kerjin2...@gmail.com
on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:54