I'm not gonna say to you that if you have something complex calling
"destructors" isn't correct. I'm just gonna argue against it being in
core, as IMHO it's something that not really many people need, and,
since you have to call it manually, the best you can do is defining a
naming convention, not a behavior.

So.... do it if you want it, I'm not one to tell you what methods you
can or cannot call on your projects :)


On 9/28/07, Ryan Gahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex, javascript has its own garbage collector, sure... but firstly, it's
> not a consistent implementation across browsers. This is an ancient problem
> as far as Ajax development goes. Secondly, the apps I develop (and more
> people are starting to get into) are highly complex, long running single
> page apps (major applications running in a browser, not "enhanced"
> websites), with widgets coming in and out of existence as the user interacts
> and moves through the flow of the app. The dispose methods handle 1)
> removing dom event handlers from dom elements before they are removed from
> the dom, therefore removing that as a memory leak path (which is a very well
> documented path, look it up), 2) destroying children widgets it may have
> created during its lifetime, unregistering things like Draggables,
> Sortables, etc... 3) any other actions required during the dispose cycle,
> like persisting or hydrating state in cases where it's important.
> Your trying to tell someone that's been doing Ajax development for 3+ years
> that he doesn't know what he's talking about... simma down, nah!
> On 9/28/07, Alex Arnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, "Les Szklanny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes, the destructor needs to be called manually, but calling it
> > > eliminates possible memory leaks.
> > >
> > > See below a destructor for the marker (pin) object that you see on a
> > > map.  This destructor also destroys the events object, which is a
> > > property of marker.
> >
> > You guys are taking this way way too far.  Javascript is a language in
> > of itself.  It has it's own rules and ways of doing things.  The core
> > team has merely added a more convenient way to do OO operations.  They
> > aren't re-inventing the wheel, or doing anything that wasn't already
> > possible with the language.
> >
> > Secondly, javascript uses automatic garbage collection. There is no
> > need to create destructor methods, the javascript engine will clean up
> > un-referable objects at some future time.  Granted, there are a few
> > caveats especially when dealing with Closures but those are all things
> > that documented and things that are common to other languages that use
> > automatic garbage collection.
> >
> > Have a look here if you don't believe me.
> http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html#clAtGb
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Ryan Gahl
> Manager, Senior Software Engineer
> Nth Penguin, LLC
> http://www.nthpenguin.com
> --
> Architect
> WebWidgetry.com / MashupStudio.com
> Future Home of the World's First Complete Web Platform
> --
> Inquire: 1-262-951-6727
> Blog: http://www.someElement.com
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryangahl
>  >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to