I thought of that too, but for some reason it appears to be a fragile solution in my mind. Should I be putting more faith in the stack? Is this something that is commonly done?
-Jim On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Derek <sp1d...@gmail.com> wrote: > Use before_update to store the current data in the session, then the > after_update would have access to it. > > > On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:55:36 AM UTC-7, Jim S wrote: >> >> Because the update may fail. >> >> -Jim >> >> On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:20:18 PM UTC-6, Derek wrote: >>> >>> Why not just use before_update? >>> >>> On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:53:21 AM UTC-7, Jim S wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm missing something. I have a table where I want to react to changes >>>> to a particular field. I'm trying to use the _after_update callback check >>>> for this. However, using this it appears to me that I am only seeing the >>>> data values after the update. I can't see what they were before the update >>>> so I don't know which fields we actually updated. Is there a 'bef'ore' >>>> buffer available that I'm missing? I'm trying to capture changes made >>>> using a smartgrid. Any tips would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> -Jim >>>> >>> -- > > > > --
