Re: [w3c/webcomponents] [idea] childConnectedCallback and childDisconnectedCallback (#550)

> nobody said that is the place indeed and you should add the observer within the constructor.

Yes, but `connectedCallback` and `disconnectedCallback` seemed like the right way to create it and reciprocally destroy it. It was obvious or intuitive that making an observer in `constructor` would work, while making one in `connectedCallback` wouldn't. So in [the example](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/787#issuecomment-459829842) I'm doing it in both `constructor` and `connectedCallback` with conditional checks, so that `disconnectedCallback` can clean it up and if the node is reconnected it can regain the functionality in `connectedCallback` instead of `constructor`.

This is all under the assumption that a `MutationObserver` **_should_** be cleaned up by calling its `disconnect()` method. Can we expect things to be garbage collected when the node is not used anymore, without calling `observer.disconnect()`?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/550#issuecomment-460000461