I had a situation where 2 modules I had that were being used both did a node_load and node_save call. This created a problem because the second save overwrote the first save. Since I don't want to have to clear out the cache in the function everytime it's loaded I looked for an alternative. In node.module I combined the node_save and node_load functions into one _node_operations function with a shared cache that can be updated. I'm not sure if this will work for every case in drupal but I'm sure if someone could review this patch it would be easily be fixed for that.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #4 | node_op.patch | 12.89 KB | Daemon_Byte |
| #2 | node_op.patch | 196.04 KB | Daemon_Byte |
| node_op.patch | 201.47 KB | Daemon_Byte |
Comments
Comment #2
Daemon_Byte commentedok ok I use windows, punish me for it :p
Comment #4
Daemon_Byte commentedThere's a typo in that annoying checker
"Ensure the patch applies to the lastest checkotu of the code-base."
And here we go again. What is the point of selecting a version if it's got to be against the latest dev anyway.
Comment #6
lyricnz commentedYour patch needs to be from the root of the drupal directory. I.e. the first couple of lines need to look like
not
In any case, such a change is unlikely to be considered for D6, which is now in maintenance mode.
Comment #7
Daemon_Byte commentedArh of course because it's a core patch. Oh well it seemed like a good idea to me to do this rather than have separate static caches. It's coursed a couple of problems on our code where people have called a function which uses node load after a save and it didn't work :) Not looked at the under belly of 7 yet to see if it has the same problem.
Comment #8
mdupontFeatures requests should go against 8.x-dev first.
Comment #9
Daemon_Byte commentedWhen I submitted it 7 wasn't even released let alone work on 8. I thought it was a good idea but I got busy so forgot about it.
Comment #10
xjm(Merging "node system" and "node.module" components for 8.x; disregard.)
Comment #23
quietone commented@Daemon_Byte, Thank you for the idea!
There hasn't been discussion here for 10 years. The proposal doesn't met the Criteria for evaluating proposed changes. In this case, there is not demonstrated demand and support for the change.