https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32476
--- Comment #35 from David Gustafsson <glask...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #28) > I really like this conceptually. The suggestion I would make is to reverse > the use of the cache param. Only require "cache => 0" to not use the cache. > You already have cache invalidation to the only time it's needed is in > _accessor_cache This could be done, and it would probably work, but I opted for conservatism as there is in practical terms no benefit in terms of performance using cache for the methods in places where they are called just a few times, and a non zero chance of introducing some subtle cache related bug. While not 100% I'm pretty sure I caught all the performance critical cases, and if we find any more it's simple to just cache them as well. I think the current solution is perhaps a little bit too over engineered for just caching these two methods in a few places, but perhaps also does not hurt to have a more standardized way of implementing per instance caching if more performance critical methods are added ore discovered in the future. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/