Destructor of XBL element isn't called when I remove this element from DOM

NEW
Unassigned

Status

()

Core
XBL
14 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: surkov, Unassigned)

Tracking

(Blocks: 1 bug)

Trunk
x86
Windows 2000
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
blocking1.9 -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments)

698 bytes, text/xml
Details
513 bytes, application/vnd.mozilla.xul+xml
Details
(Reporter)

Description

14 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

When I remove XBL element from DOM by removeChild() method than XBL destructor
isn't called. I think desctructor should be called.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
testcase, please
(Reporter)

Comment 2

14 years ago
Created attachment 138401 [details]
This is test xbl
(Reporter)

Comment 3

14 years ago
Created attachment 138402 [details]
Run me

Updated

14 years ago
Blocks: 229703
This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
Assignee: hyatt → general
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Unfortunately, detaching bindings when removing from a document would actually
break a good deal of our content.  We need to come up with a sane XBL attachment
story...
(Reporter)

Comment 6

12 years ago
Should be desctuctor called? Note a bug 265086.
Depends on: 83635

Updated

12 years ago
Summary: Desctructor of XBL element isn't called when I remove this element from DOM → Destructor of XBL element isn't called when I remove this element from DOM
Blocks: 338468
Blocks: 296474
No longer blocks: 338468

Comment 7

10 years ago
Jonas is this something we want to get fixed?
Flags: blocking1.9?
Not for firefox 3 unless this is holding back extension developers a lot?

The leak in bug 296474 should be fixable through other means.
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9-

Comment 9

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #8)
> Not for firefox 3 unless this is holding back extension developers a lot?
> 
> The leak in bug 296474 should be fixable through other means.
> 

Will the leak in 296474 show up for others - e.g. is this a place to fix the issue for everyone...
Yeah, most likely.
Note that we could just have a pending destructor queue (like pending ctors), add bindings to it where we currently tear down the binding implementation, and do all that, plus firing destructor, in either EndUpdate or off an event (like we do constructors).

It's a scary change, though.  Really scary.  Likely to break some chrome, I bet (due to chrome working around this bug, at least in part).
Yeah, i'm more worried about chrome depending on things working as they currently are, than not being able to implement this "safely".
Assignee: xbl → nobody
QA Contact: ian → xbl
Are there some concrete examples for how a chrome dependency on this might look like? I'm not sure the dependency actually exists. But if it does, I guess it would be trivial to fix.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.