Makes sense just to add conditions to the associations so: class Photo has_many :votes, :conditions => ['active = ? ', true] end
I presume this is what you're planning on doing at the moment? Less work and I doubt the scope would perform noticeably better (if at all) ? Why not try both methods and check the speed of each query? On Apr 15, 9:58 pm, Bryan Corey <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-s.net> wrote: > Hello all, > > We are converting our application so that user-generated content such as > votes, photos, users, comments, etc are all disabled instead of deleted. > This serves us better as administrators of the site as well as fits into > a UI redesign coming later that will include undo functionality. The > question I have is would it be better to place the active=true condition > part of all my associations I already have in place (little work), or do > I strip my associations down to barebones and build named_scopes for my > "active" state, and any other states? The problem here is I would need > to append nearly all calls to photo.votes, photo.comments, > project.photos, project.votes, etc with .active (much more work). > > Which is the better method in the long run? Thanks guys. > -- > 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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
