It means that I did not do the work myself, so I don't know what was done, but I know that some issues were found and fixed. There might still be other issues and I don't know if you've hit one or not. Fortunately, in Flex 3 there is a memory profiler and the one in the later builds since Beta3 works well enough to help you find any leaks. If you see a suspected leak, try to reproduce in a simple case and post on the forum and we'll try to help you out.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hannes.stockner Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: destructing objects / memory management best practices What does "pretty sure" mean? yes or no? for our project this is a very important issue! thanks --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Alex Harui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pretty sure we fixed this in 3.0. Weak-reference listeners are used in > Binding. > > > > You usually do not need to remove inline event listeners as the point > back from the child to the document and therefore cannot cause a leak. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of Bjorn Schultheiss > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:38 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] destructing objects / memory management best > practices > > > > So do we need to manually unwatch each binding statement ? > > > > Also what about inline event listeners in mxml ? > > Since we cannot manually remove them do i also need to switch to > declaring all event listeners in AS ? > > > > This is currently a major issue for me as in our latest Dev we are using > modules and loading/unloading/reloading are very important issues to us. > > > > > > > > > > On 24/01/2008, at 7:30 AM, Jerome Clarke wrote: > > > > > > This is the reason why I only used Actionscript based binding instead of > MXML... simply because you have control of that > > On Jan 23, 2008 6:11 PM, Samuel R. Neff < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > So is it correct then that if you bind to something outside, say like to > a singl! eton Mod el, then that binding creates a link which the author > has no control over and can not destroy. So lets I have an example like: > > <Canvas title="{Model.instance.applicationTitle}" /> > > Then that simple binding will cause every instance of this component to > be created and never GC'd? We as Flex developers have no official way > to tell this MXML based binding to unwatch and thus no way to clear the > strong reference from the singleton Model to the component. Isn't this > a huge memory leak? I don't understand how to reconcile this with your > recommendation of being wary of reading outside to other parts of the > app. Are you saying we should not use MXML based bindings to reach > outside our component at all? > > Thanks, > > Sam > > > > --------------------------------! ----------- > We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team building > Flex based products. Position is in the Washington D.C. metro area. If > interested contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > ] > On Behalf Of Matt Chotin > > Sent:< /b> Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM > > > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] destructing objects / memory management best > practices > > > > No, you're right that binding does not use weak listeners (we tried at > the end of Flex 2 development and found some really bad bugs if we did > that). So I shouldn't be making a global statement about don't check > bindings. But I guess my point is not that not all bindings are bad, > especially when done within a single MXML document that doesn't try to > reach outside. Best practice is to be wary of how easily you reach out > into other parts of the! app. The more you can centralize that kind of > thing, the easier it is to have code that releases listeners, > references, etc. > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > ] > On Behalf Of Samuel R. N! eff > Sent: We dnesday, January 23, 2008 9:25 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] destructing objects / memory management best > practices > > > > Matt, > > > > My understanding from reading the binding code is that bindings do not > use a weak reference when they add an event listener, so bindings must > be cleared (unwatched) in order for an object to be available for GC? > Are bindings created through MXML automatically unwatched at any point? > Or am I wrong about bindings using a strong reference? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sam > > > > ------------------------------------------- > We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team building > Flex based products. Position is in the Washington D.C. metro area. If > interested [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
