- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 00:17:13 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On May 28, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > > If so, that seems like it could create unbounded memory leaks in > > > long-running Web applications that use MessagePorts, even if all > > > references to both endpoints of the MessageChannel are dropped. That > > > seems unacceptable to me, unless I misunderstood. > > > > The requirement is actually indistinguishable from the UA using the > > other alternative and just having a really slow garbage collector that > > only runs at page-closing time. > > So it's exactly equivalent to the old requirement, except the spec now > specifically points out that you can just leak forever instead. I don't > think that addresses the original concern at all. I've tweaked the text some to make it clear that once the port is not entangled, it doesn't continue being protected in this way. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 17:17:13 UTC