Peter Michaux (2014-07-06T05:00:21.000Z)
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-07-11T23:11:26.147Z)
I've been reading about WeakMap in the draft. To my surprise, it is not at all what I thought it would be or what I was hoping to use. At least that is my understanding. My use case is in MV* architectures. With current MV* frameworks, a model holds strong references to the views observing that model. If a view is removed from the DOM, all other references in the application are lost to that view, but the view never stopped observing the model object, that strong reference from model to view results in a zombie view. Avoiding this means views need to have `destroy` methods that unsubscribes the view from the model. It is easy for the application programmer to forget to call a view's `destroy` method and the application leaks memory. As a result of the leak, the user experience and ultimately the reputation of the Web suffers. If a model could hold weak references to its observers, this would safeguard against accidental and inevitable application programmer forgetfulness. It appears that WeakMap cannot help solve the current MV* zombie view problem. Or did I miss something? I was expecting WeakMap to hold its values weakly and set them to undefined or delete the associated key when the value was garbage collected. Does anything exist or is coming to help solve the zombie problem? ---- Smalltalk Squeak models use a WeakIdentityKeyDictionary which holds its keys weakly. The difference compared with the ECMAScript WeakMap is that instances of WeakIdentityKeyDictionary have an iterator so the observers can be stored as the keys and still discoverable without keeping other strong references. The ECMAScript standard specifically disallows in iterator.