On Aug 23, 11:42 am, IAmNan <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Fred and Danny. Fred thanks for the explanation. As mentioned, > I am using Rails 3 and both I have them both native. I go from few > options to several. Maybe I can clean up my code a little now. > Sweet! :) > > I totally wouldn't have expected your explanation, Fred, but I see now > it's right. I am struggling to think of a case where I would want two > instances of the same object in memory since it would lead to a race > condition most of the time. Hence, I am also wondering why :inverse_of > isn't the default behavior. Maybe it's performance. Rhetorical, you > don't need to answer those as I'll check them out in my own time. >
Inverse_of isn't automatic because in the non trivial cases it may not be obvious which associations are the inverse of which. Having multiple copies of an object in memory is generally undesirable (eg data mapper doesn;t do this), but is not particularly easy to change (especially if backwards compatibility is a concern). Fred > Thanks again. > > On Aug 22, 9:11 pm, Danny Burkes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If you really want callbacks after commit, you might > > tryhttp://github.com/freelancing-god/after_commit > > > - D > > -- > > Posted viahttp://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.
