On Jun 12, 8:46 am, AchipA <attila.cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Errr, but that is how it works right now, so you have to keep this > behavior in some form if you want to be backward compatible. True but I was thinking why would you execute another controller's model if it is supposed to be for that particular controller only, and it was not called. > > As for Alexey's lazytable approach, if it can help avoiding the > current kitchensink model approach I'm all for it (e.g. when I run a > cron task controller on a busy site I really really don't want it mess > with databases in the models it does not need - connecting to remote > mysql servers, opening sqlite files, etc). On low traffic sites, it > doesn't matter that much, but as load increases it becomes more and > more of a problem as the database is already the most probable > bottleneck... If it is easy to implement I don't see why not. All the other ideas seem to have major drawbacks. Time (and lots of live testing) will tell. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
