> Right now, I have the :action_suffix for a fragment I cache such > that I > can find it when I need to delete it from the cache. But an episode > on > Rails Casts gave the idea that another approach is to not worry about > deleting the old fragments. They will eventually just get pushed > out of > the cache. Instead, just make sure that the name is unique to the > version of the object(s) for which the fragment renders. > > So, the suggestion was to make the :action_suffix tied to the last > update field or an equivalent field. > > Can anyone comment on this strategy? It seems much easier to me. It > somewhat solves the problem of trying to kill the old cache entries > with > all the ugly sweeper logic.
Seems reasonable. As long as you're sure your cache will expire the old entries and not keep piling them up until you run out of ram/disk space. I would consider adding a generic method to all your models named say "fragment_key" that does whatever is necessary to generate a unique key. That way in your controllers/views you never have to think what fields to put in there to get the right version. It's always just @instance.fragment_key. And you can hash that if you want to shorten it down and avoid any key length issues or invalid characters, etc. You might also find this interesting... http://blog.plataformatec.com.br/2009/09/how-to-avoid-dog-pile-effect-rails-app/ -philip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
