Synchronous Object.observe but Asynchronous Object.unobserve ?
erik.arvidsson at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 18:38:29 PDT 2012
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
<andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering if this is actually meant/expected, I am talking about the
> example here:
I'm not sure I understand your point. The example is not normative and
it doesn't say anything about timing.
> and the fact it should show something in console while in my opinion that
> should show nothing since the Object.unobserve is called in the same "tick"
The delivery of the mutation records is async, not the calls to
Object.observe or Object.unobserve.
> Then I read the algo and I wonder if this won't create many problems, i.e.
> enabling a new way to leak objects through observers that should not be
> called once the object is not observed anymore, specially because there's no
> way to understand if the object is observed or not, isn't it?
Leak in what sense? Memory, security?
If someone has access to a non frozen object they can observe changes
to its data properties. This is not a new capability, it can be done
today by polling or rewriting them as accessors.
> Thanks for any sort of clarification.
I'm not sure that answer your questions?
More information about the es-discuss