Was weak-reference listeners for binding introduced in beta3 or an
earlier beta?
On 24/01/2008, at 6:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
Pretty sure we fixed this in 3.0. Weak-reference listeners are used
in Binding.
You usually do not need to remove inline event listeners as the
point back from the child to the document and therefore cannot cause
a leak.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bjorn Schultheiss
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [flexcoders] destructing objects / memory management best
practices
So do we need to manually unwatch each binding statement ?
Also what about inline event listeners in mxml ?
Since we cannot manually remove them do i also need to switch to
declaring all event listeners in AS ?
This is currently a major issue for me as in our latest Dev we are
using modules and loading/unloading/reloading are very important
issues to us.
On 24/01/2008, at 7:30 AM, Jerome Clarke wrote:
This is the reason why I only used Actionscript based binding
instead of MXML... simply because you have control of that
On Jan 23, 2008 6:11 PM, Samuel R. Neff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So is it correct then that if you bind to something outside, say
like to a singl! eton Mod el, then that binding creates a link which
the author has no control over and can not destroy. So lets I have
an example like:
<Canvas title="{Model.instance.applicationTitle}" />
Then that simple binding will cause every instance of this component
to be created and never GC'd? We as Flex developers have no
official way to tell this MXML based binding to unwatch and thus no
way to clear the strong reference from the singleton Model to the
component. Isn't this a huge memory leak? I don't understand how
to reconcile this with your recommendation of being wary of reading
outside to other parts of the app. Are you saying we should not use
MXML based bindings to reach outside our component at all?
Thanks,
Sam
--------------------------------! -----------
We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team
building Flex based products. Position is in the Washington D.C.
metro area. If interested contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Matt Chotin
Sent:< /b> Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] destructing objects / memory management
best practices
No, you're right that binding does not use weak listeners (we tried
at the end of Flex 2 development and found some really bad bugs if
we did that). So I shouldn't be making a global statement about
don't check bindings. But I guess my point is not that not all
bindings are bad, especially when done within a single MXML document
that doesn't try to reach outside. Best practice is to be wary of
how easily you reach out into other parts of the! app. The more you
can centralize that kind of thing, the easier it is to have code
that releases listeners, references, etc.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Samuel R. N! eff
Sent: We dnesday, January 23, 2008 9:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] destructing objects / memory management
best practices
Matt,
My understanding from reading the binding code is that bindings do
not use a weak reference when they add an event listener, so
bindings must be cleared (unwatched) in order for an object to be
available for GC? Are bindings created through MXML automatically
unwatched at any point? Or am I wrong about bindings using a strong
reference?
Thanks,
Sam
-------------------------------------------
We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team
building Flex based products. Position is in the Washington D.C.
metro area. If interested [EMAIL PROTECTED]
