On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:14:31AM -0300, Emilio Tagua wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This email is about Marcin Raczkowski's project for Ruby Summer Of > Code (http://rubysoc.org/projects): Project #12: ActiveRecord Identity > Map > > You can find the current implementation in my Rails repo (identity_map > branch): http://github.com/miloops/rails/commits/identity_map > > I was assigned as the mentor project and I've also invested time > working on it, since I find its very important for all of us using > Rails to have this implemented. > > Several days ago, and after lots of feedback, I sent a pull request to > rails/master as José Valim suggested: > http://github.com/rails/rails/pull/76 > > Some key features that were lately implemented: > > - A middleware that wraps each request into a new map, if it's > disabled then no middleware is loaded. > - IM is enabled by default: to disable it use > config.active_record.identity_map = false > - IM is flushed on tests setup, this was added to > ActiveSupport::TestCase, if you are using Rspec, you should try with: > > before(:each) do > ActiveRecord::IdentityMap.clear > end > > - A WeakHash implementation was included in ActiveSupport, if you are > using jRuby Weakling library will be used as WeakHash. > > I've been using a script to test resources, which is the most > important feature that IM will bring among objects consistency, > although speed has increased in some cases is not the goal of IM. > > Results from the script are very promising: > > http://gist.github.com/636470 > > I would love to get more feedback, if you try it feel free to comment > on the pull request, reply this email, or contact me by email or IM at > miloops at gmail.
More questions about 4db9dca55e3acc2c59f252eb83ecb83db5f4b81b: http://github.com/miloops/rails/commit/4db9dca55e3acc2c59f252eb83ecb83db5f4b81b activerecord/test/cases/autosave_association_test.rb is changed. Why was this test changed? Does the AR api not work anymore? Is it changing? - assert [email protected]_for_destruction? + assert [email protected]_for_destruction? Do I need to ask the new "target" object if it's marked for destruction? I am worried. Changing existing tests does not instill confidence. :-( -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/
pgp59KxDYdqEq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
