Ok. These changes are now on trunk (master) of NodeBind.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Rafael Weinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > I've implemented (2) & (3) and created a new branch which contains the > changes: > > https://github.com/Polymer/NodeBind/tree/noUnbind > > (here's the CL: https://codereview.appspot.com/76140044/). > > This change improved the binding benchmark (at 100% density with O.o > enabled, but no compound bindings or expressions) by about 35%: > > https://github.com/Polymer/TemplateBinding/blob/master/benchmark/index.html > > and the codereview-diff.html benchmark(with O.o enabled) by about 15%: > > > https://github.com/Polymer/TemplateBinding/blob/master/benchmark/codereview-diff.html > > I leave it to Scott & Steve to let me know when/if Polymer-dev would like > to integrate this change (by not using unbind/unbindAll anymore). > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Rafael Weinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I'd like to propose two repo/design changes: >> >> 1) Merge the NodeBind Repo into TemplateBinding. >> >> This will basically mean just moving the source & tests from NodeBind >> into TemplateBinding. This doesn't really change the design of the system >> (at least yet), but it does acknowledge that these two things really go >> together. It's one less repo to deal with and it means that we can >> eventually write a single pseudo-spec for the whole system and have it be >> in one place. >> >> 2) Remove Node.prototype.unbind, Node.prototype.unbindAll. >> >> It's somewhat less clear to me that nodes should ever be unbind-able >> (rebind-able, or imperatively bind-able beyond template instancing, for >> that matter). The only use-case we've encountered for doing this is >> cleaning up (shutting down observation). However, if WeakRefs become >> available in ES or if TemplateBinding/NodeBind get standardized (and >> therefore make weak references available from c++), cleaning up observation >> can be a concern of the node itself, and not require external interaction. >> >> Thus, the current design where Node.prototype.bind() is returning a >> "close-able" object is really only internal API for the prollyfill. >> >> The main motivation for doing this is perf. Unbinding and setting up the >> .bindings object during construction are significant work. >> >> I know that Polymer is currently using unbind and unbindAll(), but my >> proposal is for polymer to do what TemplateBinding does, which is to keep >> an array of closeable objects for each fragment that will eventually need >> to be cleaned up, rather than traverse a fragment and unbind all nodes. >> >> 3) Make Node.prototype.bindings run-time enable-able. >> >> Again, this is significant work for which I know of only one use case >> (which is tooling -- e.g. the sandbox app). >> >> I propose that we allow the bindings of a Node to be reflectable only if >> some well known switch is enabled. This is analogous to devtools using >> internal APIs to enable reflection. >> >> Concerns? >> >> >> > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CABMdHiSZdccziZTPT94DGoa_f5fOhBz%2B33it2JWjBhNcaZymzg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
