On Jun 5, 12:54 pm, Jian Lin <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > >> foo.js?1273424325 > > >> which is to use the cached version as long as there is no code change, > >> but recompile it when there is code change? > > > Because it's a different kind of caching. JavaScript caching simply > > involves using the browser cache for included files, whereas controller > > caching involves Ruby objects in memory on the server. > > I know that they are different kind of caching, -- now can't the same > principle be used? When newer, reload / recompile it -- when older, no > need to reload or recompile. > > so when the controller code in cache is newer, then no need to > re-compile. when it finds that the controller code is newer, then > recompile it. > > by the way, what is this caching? I thought it is re-interpreted each > time? So what is the caching for -- it is not byte code like in Python?
Caching is sort of the wrong word, because it implies that rails does something in order to achieve caching, whereas the opposite is true: rails' code reloading is the extra behaviour. There have been attempts to make the code reloading stuff only reload what needs to be reloaded, see for example http://github.com/thedarkone/rails-dev-boost Fred > > -- > 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-t...@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.
