Yes.
On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Scott Lanham wrote:
Do you clear the owner by calling setOwner( null )?
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:04:23 am Greg Brown wrote:
More importantly, you may need to clear the Alert's owner when it
closes. If you instantiate the Alert once and keep it around for the
lifetime of your application, you probably don't need to do that, but
if your instantiates the Alert every time you need to open it, you
will need to clear the owner. Otherwise, you will trigger the memory
leak (since the owner will retain a reference to the window even
though you have already released it).
On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Greg Brown wrote:
Note that you now need to specify the Alert's owner by a call to
setOwner() before you call open(). I know this is less convenient
than the open(Window) method, but we had to eliminate that method
because it was a source of memory leaks. We gave a lot of thought to
other solutions, but we felt that eliminating the problem methods
altogether was the cleanest solution. It is also consistent with how
similar APIs in Windows and GTK work (which also require the caller
to manually set the window owner).
Hopefully this change doesn't require too much rework on your part.
Let us know if you have any questions or run into any issues.
G
On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Scott Lanham wrote:
Hi,
Was it intentional to change Alert.open() so that only a Display
could be
passed as the first argument instead of a Window?
Thanks,
Scott.
