https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36431
--- Comment #5 from Jeroen De Dauw <[email protected]> 2012-05-07 13:07:30 UTC --- Yeah, +1, that's basically what I said, but broken down better :) > using a list of objects representing updates jobs As long as the jobs get run immediately - would be very bad to have them end up in the jobque and not seeing the changes made right after save. > By the way - being able to cache the result of this check would be a reason > to have non-mutable Content objects. Disagree. You can easily cache the validity and set it to unknown when a change that can impact it is made to the object. This would be even more effective since you can ignore changes that don't impact it (you'd need to pass $isValid to the constructor in the immutable case, which seems evil), and you don't have all the overhead of constantly creating new instances. ... And it would not work in the first place since you need to check right before doing the save, unless you don't mind making the transaction significantly "less atomic" :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
