On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski < > jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't really care about using disconnect as pause, it's not meant for >> that and it's not a good solution for that. What I care about is what the >> use case / justification for having this weirdness is? A nice-to-have (not >> sure this is even a nice-to-have) doesn't really warrant introducing hard >> to debug memory leaks. I believe a lot of developers will expect that if >> they disconnect a ScriptProcessorNode and lose references to it, it gets >> GCed and doesn't burn cycles and / or eat away the performance of the graph >> anymore. This is similar to disconnecting a DOM node from the graph. If it >> has no references, it gets garbage collected and no more events are fired. >> > > That's not true for DOM nodes in general. For example, a completely > disconnected HTML media element that's playing some media resource > continues to fire events. > Valid counterpoint otherwise, but when it is playing it is actually connected somewhere observable, although not DOM. Cheers, Jussi > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * > * >
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 20:35:03 UTC