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:
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/
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...
Should be desctuctor called? Note a bug 265086.
Jonas is this something we want to get fixed?
Not for firefox 3 unless this is holding back extension developers a lot? The leak in bug 296474 should be fixable through other means.
(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".
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.