Based on your use case you should not be calling em.merge() only calling em.remove(em.find(Order.class,oder.getId())).
Calling em.merge() with an unpopulated Order will change the relationships but will not cause any related objects to be removed.
--Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Dru Devore [mailto:ddevore_at_duckhouse.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:53 AM
To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
Subject: RE: Not cascading remove
I am not sure if I understand correctly.
What I want to happen is this:
when I remove an order it removes the order and items but stops there. The rest of the referenced tables in item are set to no cascading.
What was happening is this:
when I called remove with only the id populated in the order it would delete the order information and the order_order_item reference table entries but not the order_item references.
The code read like this:
em.remove(em.merge(order)) (as produced by NB)
I changed it to query the order first the do the em.remove(em.merge(order)) (at this point the em.merge(order) should be a no-op. But what this does is populates the references to the items which will then be removed.
Is this right?
Also, would it be right to say that if I were to do the em.remove(order) with only the id populated that it would remove the whole thing correctly and result in what I am wanting.
Basically! if I populate the id in the order I would expect the order and all related tables to be removed which I am guessing would happen if I didn't leave the NB generated em.merge(order) part. Is that correct?
---
Dru Devore
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Not cascading remove
From: "Gordon Yorke" <gordon.yorke_at_oracle.com>
Date: Tue, March 25, 2008 10:25 am
To: "persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net"
<persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net>
Just to be clear the issue was that the em.merge() call that you were using was asking the Provider to update the managed copy and set all of the attributes to null or empty collections. This pattern will result in removing all persistent data from an Entity and is very dangerous.
--Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Dru Devore [mailto:ddevore_at_duckhouse.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:03 AM
To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
Subject: RE: Not cascading remove
That worked...so this proves it you do learn something new every day.
So if you simply populate the id of an entity and delete the entity it will not propagate the changes to related tables, beyond the first level. That is a good thing to know.
---
Dru Devore
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Not cascading remove
From: Dru Devore <ddevore_at_duckhouse.us>
Date: Tue, March 25, 2008 9:39 am
To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
I know that the order has items because after ! completing the operation I can see the items in the database. This may be the problem...for testing purposes I simply wrapped the session bean with a service and am calling it through NB with just the id populated in the object and no query on the object before the delete. I am going to attempt to do the delete with querying the oject using the id first then delete.
---
Dru Devore
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Not cascading remove
From: James Sutherland <jamesssss_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, March 25, 2008 9:28 am
To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev! .java.net
Yes, remove(order) should cascade the cascade delete relationship and also
remove the order's items (not just the join table).
Is an error occurring, or are the OrderItems just not deleted? Try setting
the log level to finest to see what is occurring.
Also does the order that you are merging have any OrderItems? Or were they
all removed, or not serialized, if it is empty, then they will not be
removed.
A workaround (to whatever is occurring) may be to edit the mapping using a
DescriptorCustomizer and set the order's orderItems mapping
(ManyToManyMapping) to be privateOwned.
ddevore wrote:
>
> actually I am calling em.remove(em.merge(order)) now I was under the
> impression that the cascade=CascadeType.ALL indicated that a r! emove would
> remove all the through the relationship not just t he intermediary table.
>
> ---
> Dru! Devore
>
-----
---
http://wiki.eclipse.org/User:James.sutherland.oracle.com James Sutherland
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/
EclipseLink ,
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/toplink/
TopLink
Wiki:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink EclipseLink ,
http://wiki.oracle.com/page/TopLink TopLink
Forums:
http://forums.oracle.com/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=48 TopLink ,
http://www.nabble.com/EclipseLink-f26430.html EclipseLink
Book:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence Java Persistence
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Not-cascading-remove-tp16255109p16274773.html
Sent from the java.net - glassfish persistence mailing list archive at Nabble.com.