Re: Owns Destination & Deny
Re: Owns Destination & Deny
- Subject: Re: Owns Destination & Deny
- From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:31:41 -0800
On Mar 5, 2009, at 4:15 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
I also get the error if it the relationship is set to "Owns
Destination" and the delete rule is "Deny"
Having these two settings, unless I'm missing something, are in
direct conflict with each other.
I think if Owns Destination is checked, then the following should
automatically happen:
1) Delete Rule should be set to "Cascade" and drop down disabled
(anything else is in conflict with Owns Destination).
Not 100% sure on that. Deny means you can't delete the parent if
there are children. It might be reasonable to have this restriction.
The children would have to be manually deleted before the parent could
be deleted.
Chuck
2) If there is an inverse relationship it should be set to
"Required" (not Optional) and the checkbox disabled with a note
stating that the relationship is Required by the Owns Destination
setting on the inverse relationship.
Am I missing anything?
Beyond my somewhat-less-than-genius EOModel settings, the error I
get is very confusing. There is nothing about the error that would
make you think the problem was with settings in the EOModel.
Has anyone ever seen this undo manager error when not using Java
Client?
Dave
On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Mar 2, 2009, at 7:05 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Hi all, mostly my future self.
When I have a relationship setup that has the following settings:
1) Owns Destination
2) Delete Rule of Deny
3) Inverse relationship is Optional (I think this should be
impossible if the object is owned)
I get the following error when I try to delete an instance:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: undo: undo manager is in invalid
state, undo was called with too many nested undo groups
I don't know if this impacts anything other than Java Client, but
I've run into it several times and every time I search on this, I
only find my posts.
Would it make sense to have a validation rule in Entity Modeler
that the inverse relationship of an "Owns Destination"
relationship cannot be optional?
I can't think of any case where it being optional would be
correct. That sounds like a good validation. File 'em Dano.
Chuck
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden