On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 18:34 +0100, Ash Berlin wrote: > > I appreciate the need, but the question arises: > > swapOut to where? To some space that will still use memory, so doesn't > actually help....? > Swap out to disk - sorry I thought that was implicit
> > Also obj.kill() would be almost [im]possible to actually implement since > what would happen if you happen to kill an object that still has > references somewhere? > I would say the killed object would just equate to 'null' If a programmer kills an object and then tries to reference it, then that's his/her problem > What you actually want is just a gc() method avilable somewhere that > will do a normal GC run, just on demand isn't it? This is certainly > more likely to happen. > Actually, no. I would assume the work involved in going through every DOM and script object and working out whether they are islands is non-trivial, whereas de-allocating the actual memory for the resulting object list would be. obj.kill() would actually do the GC a favour, by explcitly referencing an object which could be deleted. I don't see a huge issue with 'dangling' references to deleted objects. In fact, these dangling references are frequently hard to spot, and can lead to major leakage over time. I know exactly which objects I don't need any more, and I would rather be able to explictly kill them then make a generic (and expensive) GC call which may not even guarantee those items will be zapped. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
