> And, of course, that race condition exists in your console experiment, > but that's not an issue in the controller method I presented earlier.
Yes, it is. What happens when two people hit the URL that triggers that action at the same time? Change the action to this... def show @poem = Poem.find(params[:id]) sleep(rand(10)) # to simulate something that takes awhile @poem.increment!(:view_count) ... ... end Let's say that view_count is 1 for the given poem. Hit that page with two browsers at the same time and when they both finish view_count will be 2. It should be 3. > The @poem instance would be garbage collected at the end of the > request-response cycle. True, but even quick Rails processes take a little bit of time. As soon as there is *any* time between when you retrieve the record and when it gets incremented, you have a chance for a race condition because the increment (via increment!()) isn't incrementing. It's overwriting. > Other methods would have to reload from the > database anyway. So I don't see a problem using the increment! method > here. > > ------------------------------ > def show > @poem = Poem.find(params[:id]) > @poem.increment!(:view_count) > ... > ... > end > ------------------------------ > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en.
