On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Diego Carrion <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > it would be nice to have the touch option in has_many associations also. > I have a scenario like this: > An user has some credit (money) and some advertises. Each advertise can be > enabled or disabled depending on some rules. One of the rules is that the > user should have money. Each time the money of the user change, the > advertises are touched, enabled/disabled and then cached, as they are much > more requested that updated.
I'm a little concerned that adding :touch to has_many and friends is encouraging bad practice (and terrible performance) when there's almost certainly a more performant solution available. It seems risky to me to allow a single option on association to cause every instance to be instantiated, changed, and written back to the database. In your particular case couldn't your cache keys include the updated_at value from a user? Alternatively you can get the behaviour you want with a 1 line after_save function without too much hassle? Is there a use-case I'm missing here? -- Cheers Koz -- 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 [email protected]. 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.
