Cascade delete not working

Question

Hi,
I can't seem to get cascade deleting to work even though I've set it up on
the db side (SQL Server 2000)as well as follow the documentation to use
the dependendent extension:
From my 'package.jdo':
<package name="test">
<class name="Person" objectid-class="Person$ID" >
<field name="personId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column"
value="PersonId"/>
</field>
<field name="addresses" default-fetch-group="true">
<collection element-type="Address"/>
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="element-dependent"
value="true"/>
</field>
</class>
<class name="Address" objectid-class="Address$ID" >
<field name="personId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column"
value="PersonId"/>
</field>
<field name="addressId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column"
value="AddressId"/>
</field>
</class>
</package>
When I run the following code:
Person.ID id = new Person.ID("" + 3);
object = persistenceManager.getObjectById(id,false);
if (object != null) {
persistenceManager.currentTransaction().begin();
persistenceManager.deletePersistent(object);
persistenceManager.currentTransaction().commit();
I get this exception:
com.solarmetric.jdbc.ReportingSQLException: [MYDB]Incorrect syntax near
the keyword 'WHERE'. {prepstmnt 6504030 UPDATE dbo.Address SET  WHERE
PersonId = ? [params=(int) 5] [reused=0]} [code=156, state=01000]
It looks like Kodo is trying to do an update on the dependent object,
instead of a delete. Any ideas?
D. May

Answer 1

I got the same error even after changing the package.jdo to the following:
<package name="org.uscentral.webach.domain.test">
<class name="Address" objectid-class="Address$ID" >
<field name="personId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column" value="PersonId"/>
</field>
<field name="addressId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column" value="AddressId"/>
</field>
</class>
<class name="Person" objectid-class="Person$ID" >
<field name="personId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column" value="PersonId"/>
</field>
<field name="addresses" default-fetch-group="true">
<collection element-type="Address"/>
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="jdbc-delete-action"
value="cascade"/>
</field>
</class>
</package>
Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
Darrin-
If you have cascade deletion happening on the server-side, they you want
to use the "jdbc-delete-action" extension to notify Kodo of this, rather
than the "dependent" extension (which tells Kodo to perform client-side
cascading deletion).
In article <[email protected]>, Darrin May wrote:
Hi,
I can't seem to get cascade deleting to work even though I've set it up on
the db side (SQL Server 2000)as well as follow the documentation to use
the dependendent extension:
From my 'package.jdo':
<package name="test">
<class name="Person" objectid-class="Person$ID" >
<field name="personId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column"
value="PersonId"/>
</field>
<field name="addresses" default-fetch-group="true">
<collection element-type="Address"/>
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="element-dependent"
value="true"/>
</field>
</class>
<class name="Address" objectid-class="Address$ID" >
<field name="personId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column"
value="PersonId"/>
</field>
<field name="addressId" primary-key="true">
<extension vendor-name="kodo" key="data-column"
value="AddressId"/>
</field>
</class>
</package>
When I run the following code:
Person.ID id = new Person.ID("" + 3);
object = persistenceManager.getObjectById(id,false);
if (object != null) {
persistenceManager.currentTransaction().begin();
persistenceManager.deletePersistent(object);
persistenceManager.currentTransaction().commit();
I get this exception:
com.solarmetric.jdbc.ReportingSQLException: [MYDB]Incorrect syntax near
the keyword 'WHERE'. {prepstmnt 6504030 UPDATE dbo.Address SET  WHERE
PersonId = ? [params=(int) 5] [reused=0]} [code=156, state=01000]
It looks like Kodo is trying to do an update on the dependent object,
instead of a delete. Any ideas?
D. May
Marc Prud'hommeaux
SolarMetric Inc.