in reply to Class::DBI cascading delete problem?

I can't say I've had the issue you're describing, but I don't have much information to work with. Could you post more of those class definitions and the code involving the delete method? I'm sure that would help the other monks and I to analyze your problem.

Update: One of CDBI's badly-documented areas is using the has_many method. If you use two parameters, it assumes the field in the right-hand side of the relationship is the class name of the left-hand side. Thus:

# concise class definitions FooBar->table('foobar'); FooBar->has_many(frobs => "Quux"); Quux->table('quux') #and a method on this FooBar instance... $wham->frobs #makes the (oversimplified SQL query) # SELECT * FROM quux WHERE FooBar = $wham
If the field name in the RHS is different from the class name of the LHS, you need to use three parameters, the third defining the RHS field name.
FooBar->has_many(frobs => "Quux", 'foobar_id'); $wham->frobs # makes the (oversimplified SQL query) # SELECT * FROM quux WHERE foobar_id = $wham
It appears you want to use this second form for your table structure. You did some of the time, but not others, so maybe it's just a mis-copy.

mhoward - at - hattmoward.org

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Class::DBI cascading delete problem?
by zigdon (Deacon) on Sep 27, 2004 at 16:23 UTC
    It appears you want to use this second form for your table structure. You did some of the time, but not others, so maybe it's just a mis-copy.
    I was under the understanding (perhaps incorrect?) that C:DBI will look for corresponding has_a declerations?
    When setting up the relationship we examine the foreign class's has_a() declarations to discover which of its columns reference our class... If no such has_a() declarations can be found, or none link to us, we assume that it is linking to us via a column named after the moniker() of our class. If this is not true you can pass an additional third argument to the has_many() declaration stating which column of the foreign class references us.

    (from C:DBI Docs)

    -- zigdon

      That must be something new that I haven't dealt with yet. I would stick to the explitit definitions, myself. Maybe you need to change the order, if the above-mentioned checks only happen at definition time, and not when you call the resulting accessor methods.

      mhoward - at - hattmoward.org