angular-rest-mod-cache.js

define(['angular'], function(angular){

    var module = angular.module('utils.cache', ['restmod')

    // Cache implementation for angular-restmod
    // https://github.com/platanus/angular-restmod/issues/27
    module.factory('CacheModel', function(restmod){

        var mixin = restmod.mixin(function() {

            var cache = {};

            // Cache overrides
            // ------------------------------------------------------------
            this.classDefine('$fetch', function() {
                var url = this.$url(),
                    cached = cache[this.$url()];

                if(cached){
                    return cached;
                } else {
                    return cache[url] = this.$super.apply(this, arguments);
                }
            });

            this.classDefine('$find', function(_pk) {
                var url = this.$urlFor(_pk), 
                    cached = cache[url];

                if(cached){
                    return cached;
                } else {
                    return cache[url] = this.$super.apply(this, arguments);
                }
            });

            // set a pointer for cache
            this.classDefine('$cache', cache);
        });

        return mixin;
    });

    return module;
});

Ups, didn't see that last question, about that, I just realised that the README is missing provider usage directions, you can set a base model in the config stage like this:

module.config(function($restmodProvider) {
  $restmodProvider.pushModelBase(function() { // Dont really like the name for this method, any thoughs?
    this.disableRenaming():
  });
});

About the new implementation, I will miss the local storage support... Why aren't you caching single $fetch results?

To return results from $search when doing a $find with an id $search returned you could do something like

this.on('after-fetch-many', function(xhr){
  cache[this.$url()] = this;
  angular.forEach(this, function(record) {
    cache[record.$url()] = record;
  });
});

@kenborge - Ya I thought about something like that. Managing the list(s) and singles together gets tricky.