Rails mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Ken K. wrote:
I’d bet anything the version of RoR in the article was 1.0.
It can’t be. If the article date’s accurate (March '05), 1.0 was a good
7 months away (at least… don’t have dates handy). 0.8’s more likely.
Am I missing something?? Did something change in RoR 1.0 to
ActiveRecord that this article was not correctly reporting?
aj
On May 4, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Alex Y. wrote:
Andrew H. Johnson wrote:
Am I missing something?? Did something change in RoR 1.0 to
ActiveRecord that this article was not correctly reporting?
At some point the :include option was added to
ActiveRecord::Base#find, which enables eager loading. I thought it
was before 1.0, but I could be wrong. The author makes much of the
need to do piggy-back queries, which is exactly what :include does
away with.
The :include option has been part of Rails since at least 0.13 (not
sure what the AR version would be), which was out last Summer. That’s
when I first started using it…
-Brian
Andrew H. Johnson wrote:
Am I missing something?? Did something change in RoR 1.0 to
ActiveRecord that this article was not correctly reporting?
At some point the :include option was added to ActiveRecord::Base#find,
which enables eager loading. I thought it was before 1.0, but I could
be wrong. The author makes much of the need to do piggy-back queries,
which is exactly what :include does away with.
Brian H. wrote:
need to do piggy-back queries, which is exactly what :include does
away with.The :include option has been part of Rails since at least 0.13 (not
sure what the AR version would be), which was out last Summer. That’s
when I first started using it…
So it’s quite possible that it didn’t exist when the article was
written.
Is the article being presented as ‘new’ anywhere? If so, it might be
worth getting the author to make an update… Mind you, that’s the only
point which he’s actually out of date on, so maybe it’s not worth it.