Moreover, it sounds like revocable proxies can be used by libraries to achieve the same effects with respect to memory leaks, no?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Jason Orendorff <jorendo...@mozilla.com>wrote: > On 12/2/13 2:18 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote: > > However, I've become unconvinced by the data binding use case. Yehuda > > Katz and I discussed it, and after some pointed questions, he gave up, > [...] > > The flavor of my pointed questions was like this: Yehuda said that > WeakRefs would be a feature "for libraries", and that their internal use > could be hidden from end users. He pointed to Ember bindings > <http://emberjs.com/guides/object-model/bindings/>. > > I think this view, that WeakRef nondeterminism can be hidden from end > users, is common. > > But suppose Ember used WeakRefs to implement Ember bindings. That would > become visible to end users in the form of things mysteriously no longer > working after GC. For example, if you have A bound to B which is bound > to C, and B gets collected, then A and C would no longer be bound to > each other. > > More generally, I think this view is just wrong. Lambda doesn't hide > general flakiness. Successful use of WeakRefs in pub-sub use cases > depends on establishing strong references from all downstream objects > that can observe an event to the event listener. Only the end user can > know what those downstream objects even are. > > Yehuda still wants WeakRefs but is not willing to spend a lot of time on > a losing battle. > > -j > > _______________________________________________ > dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list > dev-tech-js-engine-internals@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals > _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list dev-tech-js-engine-internals@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
