Actually, while not a bad, NS still leaks a bit.
In fact early version of the API crashed my NS after just a few refreshes
- Original Message -
From: "Jordi Ministral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Dyn
The reason no one looks at ns(4) leaks is because it leeks so much even when
displaying simple stuff.
8an
___
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
And again, you set our wayward craft back on the right path : )
Jordi Ministral wrote:
> No idea. JS will delete the object because the Array does not reference
> it. Anyway, this is NS code, and memory leaks were IEs jolly gift, not
> NSs. I think.
>
> Michael Pemberton wrote:
>
> > close, but
No idea. JS will delete the object because the Array does not reference
it. Anyway, this is NS code, and memory leaks were IEs jolly gift, not
NSs. I think.
Michael Pemberton wrote:
> close, but I'll give you the cigar anyway. I really should get off my
> behind and do some of the cvs updates m
close, but I'll give you the cigar anyway. I really should get off
my behind and do some of the cvs updates myself instead of bitching.
I am not sure if the lack of the highlighted line will have any effect,
perhaps he who knows all there is to know about memory (Jordi) could shed
some light on
I noticed that the updated code still uses the first element of the
recycled array instead of the last.
I suggest that this be changed to remove the overhead of using the
removeFromArray method.
Also, if you are going off what I emailed you, you missed a vital line of
code. The recreate method
