Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[proposal] Internal mutateArgs usage in core #1529

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mikermcneil
Copy link
Member

@mikermcneil mikermcneil commented Oct 2, 2017

…ing from .destroy(). (Still needs some love.)
…p the Archived model (which doesn't exist yet)
… the forging from the find query) so that the destroy() query works. Note: At this point, you can take this and use .archive() at the app-level in your own project, provided you hook up your own Archive model. But in subsequent commits, I'll write some code that injects this model automatically, unless configured otherwise.
… it's actually faster, otherwise no reason to include any of this extra complexity.
@mikermcneil mikermcneil changed the title This demonstrates how mutateArgs could be used to hypothetically make queries faster by avoiding unnecessary object cloning internally. The next step is to benchmark this-- without benchmarks proving this is actually faster, it would be a mistake to merge this into core. [proposal] Internal mutateArgs usage in core Oct 3, 2017
@mikermcneil
Copy link
Member Author

This demonstrates how mutateArgs could be used to hypothetically make queries faster by avoiding unnecessary object cloning internally. The next step is to benchmark this-- without benchmarks proving this is actually faster, it would be a mistake to merge this into core.

@mikermcneil
Copy link
Member Author

@sgress454 I reckon you're talking about .archive() right? (I think the PRs might have crossed streams)

@sgress454
Copy link
Member

@mikermcneil I was commenting in the source, I guess the specific commit must be part of this PR...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants