Le 06/01/2012 11:20, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Your proposal won't be implemented in older browsers. Actually, it
is very likely that your proposal would be implemented in browsers
that would already have weak maps.
Under these conditions. What is the benefit of a native
implementation rather than an WeakMap based polyfill?
David
[1]
http://code.google.com/p/es-lab/source/browse/trunk/src/ses/WeakMap.js
Why would you say that ? This version https://gist.github.com/1569978
should works in every browser without problems.
I meant that your proposal won't be implemented *natively* by older
browsers. Sorry for the confusion.
I have also tested memory leaks via snapshots through the profiler ...
// snapshot, 1.2 Mb
function test(){}
for (var i = 0, a = []; i < 0xFFFF; i++) a.push({}.boundTo(test));
// snapshot 35.8 Mb
a = null;
// snapshot, 1.2 Mb
And no WeakMap is used ... am I missing something ?
In your implementation, you store in an array references to functions,
not to objects.
I would guess that
-----
var o = {};
for (var i = 0, a = []; i < 0xFFFF; i++) a.push(o.boundTo(function(){}));
a = null;
-----
leaks. Does it?
I certainly leaks, because references to the functions accumulate in
'cbStack' and are never free'd.
Having an own "boundTo" property in every single object saves you from a
memory leak in the snippet you wrote above... at the cost of potential
collisions (and an abstraction leak). And it would be an enumerable
property in an ES3 browser.
I would prefer the extra memory leak in this case, but that's a matter
of taste.
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
