On Jul 19, 2008, at 9:18 AM, David Dollar wrote:
> On a related-yet-slightly-different-topic note:
>
> p = Project.find(:first)
> p.tasks.first.name = 'New Name'
> p.save
>
> does not update the Task in the database. I'd like to get some
> thoughts/opinions on using dirty tracking to make cascadable saves
> possible.
>
> If I could cascade the saves, it becomes a lot easier to bubble up
> validations in a format that makes sense for nested associations.
Whoa pardner, that's dangerously close to the Unit-of-Work pattern
there! I like this idea (it's been discussed before many times), but
it's a huge change to how things work. Much moreso than just partial
updates. I'm all for it though.
The big issue I see is finding the associated objects that need
saving. AR isn't good at dealing with partially loaded has_many
association collections. I think you'd need a new API on associations
to enumerate the already loaded records and see which are dirty and
need saving.
p = Project.find(some_id)
task = p.tasks.find_by_name("send invoice")
task.due_date = 3.days.from_now
p.build_task(task_params)
p.save
There's a lot that would need to happen to make that example work, and
maybe that's even reaching a bit too far. Anyway, just thinking out
loud.
--
Josh Susser
http://blog.hasmanythrough.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
