More support for the non-automatic constructor team, a lot of my classes do not have constructors, they're abstract, this functionality would fubar so much of my code.
On Sep 28, 11:24 am, "Nicolás Sanguinetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 :) > > Best, > -Nicolas > > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
