Hi Michael, in my case, an user gets only updated when he puts more money in his account or when some of his money is taken because one of his advertises was clicked. In this moment, all his advertises must be reevaluated to determine if they're enabled or not.
I agree with you I can add the behavior with one line but it's less elegant. I thinks this is the reason the belongs_to associations gained the touch option. I also agree with you this can lead to a bad performance in the application but a lot of things in the Rails framework can lead to a bad performance, too. If a developer is coherent it will use the Rails api with responsibility. If a developer isn't coherent, I think he will have a bad performance anyway, using Rails api or not. Beside of that, I think we should worry with performance in the right time. With a clean design, it will be easier to fix the problems when they appear. cheers On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Michael Koziarski <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<rubyonrails-core%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > > -- Diego Carrion http://www.diegocarrion.com http://www.mouseoverstudio.com/blog/ http://www.twitter.com/dcrec1 http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/13580-diego-carrion -- 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.
