Memory Management in Backbone.js - javascript

Consider the following:
SomeView = Backbone.View.extend({
render0: function () {
var view0 = new View0();
view0.setElement("#right-block");
view0.render();
},
render1: function(event) {
var view1 = new View1();
view1.setElement("#right-block");
view1.render();
},
});
If I call render0() and then render1, what will happen to the object view0? Do I have to explicitly destroy the old view?

Your view0 will stay in memory as long as the DOM element #right-block exists. Because the event handlers on the DOM element is pointing to methods of your view, so it won't be garbage collected.
Ideally you should invoke view0.remove(), which will remove the element from DOM and also calls stopListening().
But in your sample code, if you do that, the element #right-block will be removed from DOM, and view1.setElement("#right-block"); won't work as expected.
In this case try invoking view0.undelegateEvents(); view0.stopListening();, and if nothing else is referring to the view instance, it'll be garbage collected

No, you don't have to destroy the old view. Variables in objects that themselves go out of scope do not have to be manually cleared. When they go out of scope or when the parent object is deleted, the data contained within will also be eligible for garbage collection.

Related

Knockout "with" binding removes my jquery DOM events

I have several jquery dom events that are created on DOM load or document ready. These are mostly default behaviors that should be applied to all forms in my application. Example:
$('input:text').focus(function ()
{
$(this).select();
});
Right before applying knockout binding, I can check my dom elements and all events are there:
But when I run the applyBindings method to bind the viewmodel to my DOM, the "with" binding removes all events that are not related to knockout:
I have tried overwriting the cleanExternalData as explained on the documentation and on this answer. But that did not help with this, the function is replaced, but the events are still removed from the DOM when the templating is applied on the binding process.
For the record, this is not an exclusive behavior of the with function, but all anonymous templating functions also do that, foreach, if, ifnot. Using template, as expected, also behaves the same way. The DOM element is completely destroyed, stored as a template, then added again on my document when the condition is satisfied, but now without any jquery event handlers.
How to avoid that knockout removes the events from my DOM elements?
Instead of binding elements to a specific node, you can use a databinding to use the jquery on() functionality to handle events. Here's a binding I use:
define(['knockout'], function (ko) {
ko.bindingHandlers.eventListener = {
init: function (element, valueAccessor, allBindings, viewModel, bindingContext) {
var params = ko.utils.unwrapObservable(valueAccessor());
if (!(params instanceof Array)) {
params = [params];
}
params.forEach(function (param) {
$(element).on(param.event, param.selector, function (event) {
param.callback(ko.dataFor(this), ko.contextFor(this), event);
});
});
}
}
});
Usage:
<div data-bind="eventListener: [
{ event: 'click', selector: '.copyInclusionRule', callback: copyInclusionRule},
{ event: 'click', selector: '.deleteInclusionRule', callback: deleteInclusionRule}]">
... other knockout template stuff here ...
</div>
The above will listen for click events on either an element with the specified class and perform the callback when the event is received for anything within the div's 'scope'. The value of 'event' param can be anything that on() uses.
I think the reason why you can't leverage the cleanNode overrides is that your dom is being completely destroyed and re-created..at least that's my theory, if there was a way to get some kind of memory ID of the pre-applyBindings() dom elements and then after the applyBindings is called, are those new nodes? If they are new nodes, it's not something you can't fix with cleaning, those nodes are gone.
Alright, here is how I fixed my problem and I hope this can clarify things to others that don't want to destroy their DOM as well. If you don't want that knockout to destroy your DOM, that is possible since version 2.2. And thus, destroying the DOM when that is not necessary is not intended behavior and can be avoided.
I had tried several bidings created by Michael Best before, like his using binding that will come in knockout 3.5, and let or withLight (which became using now). None really worked. These simplified bidings would load the initial object, but not update the dom when this object properties had changed.
But this helped me to figure out what I am doing wrong. When I wanted to update my observable object, I was using myViewModel.observableObject(NewObject), like the documentation told me to do:
To write a new value to the observable, call the observable and pass the new value as a parameter. For example, calling myViewModel.personName('Mary') will change the name value to 'Mary'.
But I wasn't passing a single property's value, I was passing a new object that had the same structure (same properties). And this triggered knockout that the old object was destroyed (and thus, falsy for a second) and a new object took its place, even though all properties are there, they just got different values. Unlike the documentation told me, it didn't simply changed the value, but changed the entire object.
To go around this, instead of doing that, First, I had to initiate my viewModel with this object already created, using dummy data, this makes knockout not destroy the DOM when applyBindings is called. Then, when I want my object to update, I replaced the value of each property of the observable object to have the value of the new object. This didn't destroy the object and knockout updated my binding properly.
myViewModel.setSelectedItem = function setSelectedItem (newObject)
{
for (var prop in myViewModel.myObservableObject())
myViewModel.myObservableObject()[prop](newObject[prop]);
}
The with binding still killed some of my events (my angular ng-change for one of my components, for instance), but it kept all jquery events in there (which is great). And the using binding didn't kill any of my events at all (which is even better).

How to properly destroy view on backbone?

So Im new at backbone, and Im trying to make a single page app, Im using routes to manage certain things, and I want to remove a view when the user gets to another route
Im using this method to destroy the view
destroy_view: function() {
// COMPLETELY UNBIND THE VIEW
this.undelegateEvents();
this.$el.removeData().unbind();
// Remove view from DOM
this.remove();
Backbone.View.prototype.remove.call(this);
}
also this is my route element
Router = Backbone.Router.extend({
routes: {
'':'index',
'#':'index',
'events/*event' : 'events'
},
index: function(){
this.indexView = new VistaIndex();
},
events: function(params) {
if( this.indexView )
this.indexView.destroy_view()
this.eventView = new EventView({currentEvent: params})
}
});
the problem with this is that if I do this the app crashes, so what do you recommend me to do :)
Here’s how I do it:
Backbone.View.extend({
//some other view stuff here...
destroy: function () {
this.undelegateEvents();
this.$el.removeData().unbind();
this.remove();
//OR
this.$el.empty();
}
});
First we want to make sure we’re removing all delegated events (the ones in the events:{"event selector": "callback"} hash). We do this so we can avoid memory leaks and not have mystery bindings that will fire unexpectedly later on. undelegateEvents() is a Backbone.View prototype function that removes the view’s delegated events. Simple.
Next we want to cleanup any data in the view object that is hanging around and unbind any events that we bound outside the events hash. jQuery provides a removeData() function that allows us to to do that.
You may also have bound event listeners to your view chain unbind() with no arguments to remove all previously-attached event handlers from your $el. this.$el.removeData().unbind();
Now you may want to do one of two things here. You may want to remove your view element completely OR you just want to remove any child elements you’ve appended to it during it’s life. The latter would be appropriate if, for example, you’ve set the $el of your view to be some DOM element that should remain after your view behavior is complete
In the former case, this.remove() will obliterate your view element and it’s children from the DOM.
In the later case, this.$el.empty() will remove all child elements.
Check out this fiddle if you want to fool around with my solution.
http://jsfiddle.net/oakley349/caqLx10x/

How to ensure proper closing of backbone views

I have a close function attached to all of my views,
Backbone.View.prototype.close = function()
{
this.remove();
this.unbind();
if (this.closeMe) this.closeMe();
};
And in closeMe() function inside views I call off() function of backbone to remove previously-bound callback function from models and collections.
closeMe: function()
{
if(this.model)
this.model.off(null, null, this);
...
}
Question is, If I have some variables attached to current view in initialize function, Do I need to handle them via closeMe() function?
initialize : function(options)
{
...
this.myVar= options.something;
}
The garbage collector do this work for you.
The garbage collector algorithm reduces the definition of "an object is not needed anymore" to "an object has no other object referencing to it". An object is considered garbage collectable if there is zero reference pointing at this object.
When the reference to the view has zero reference pointing at it, the garbage collector will delete this object. At this moment, if the object myVar has no references pointing at it, the garbage collector will delete it.
By the way, I suggest to use the method listenTo to listen events instead of method on because simplify your code. When you call remove on Backbone View, removes a view from the DOM, and calls stopListening over the view to remove any bound events that the view has listenTo'd.

When does a BackboneJS ModelView get garbage collected in this case?

I have a ListView and InstanceView defined in my Backbone code. The ListView is associated with a collection and it instantiates an InstanceView like so
render: function () {
this.collection.forEach(function(instance){
var commentHTML = new InstanceView({
model: instance
}).render();
renderedComments.push(commentHTML);
});
}
The new view instance goes out of scope after the render call finishes. What I've noticed is that the view persists in memory, though. I can tell because the events attached to it still fire long after the render method terminates.
So, does the view avoid gc because of its reference to the model object which, in turn, is referenced by the collection?
When the view is created events are registered on the model. The callbacks have references to the view, preventing it from being gc'ed.
Check out the backbone code on github. The events are hooked up in the delegateEventsmethod.
Objects are garbage collected whenever the JS engine feels like collecting them.
Your question, however, is actually different.
Just because you cannot access an object does not mean:
Nothing can, and
Things it attaches also go away.
Also, you explicitly add the object to collection, so it's not eligible for collection.

Backbone.js View removing and unbinding

when my page opens, I call the collection and populate the view:
var pagColl = new pgCollection(e.models);
var pagView = new pgView({collection: pagColl});
Separately (via a Datepicker), I wish to want to populate the same collection with different models and instantiate the view again.
The problem I have is how to close the original pagView and empty the pagColl before I open the new one, as this "ghost view" is creating problems for me. The variables referred to above are local variables? is it that I need to create a global pagColl and reset() this?
well there has been many discussion on this topic actually,
backbone does nothing for you, you will have to do it yourself and this is what you have to take care of:
removing the view (this delegates to jQuery, and jquery removes it from the DOM)
// to be called from inside your view... otherwise its `view.remove();`
this.remove();
this removes the view from the DOM and removes all DOM events bound to it.
removing all backbone events
// to be called from inside the view... otherwise it's `view.unbind();`
this.unbind();
this removes all events bound to the view, if you have a certain event in your view (a button) which delegates to a function that calls this.trigger('myCustomEvent', params);
if you want some idea's on how to implement a system I suggest you read up on Derrick Bailey's blogpost on zombie views: http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/09/15/zombies-run-managing-page-transitions-in-backbone-apps/.
another option
another option would be to reuse your current view, and have it re-render or append certain items in the view, bound to the collection's reset event
I was facing the same issue. I call the view.undelegateEvents() method.
Removes all of the view's delegated events. Useful if you want to disable or remove a view from the DOM temporarily.
I use the stopListening method to solve the problem, usually I don't want to remove the entire view from the DOM.
view.stopListening();
Tell an object to stop listening to events. Either call stopListening
with no arguments to have the object remove all of its registered
callbacks ... or be more precise by telling it to remove just the
events it's listening to on a specific object, or a specific event, or
just a specific callback.
http://backbonejs.org/#Events-stopListening
Here's one alternative I would suggest to use, by using Pub/Sub pattern.
You can set up the events bound to the View, and choose a condition for such events.
For example, PubSub.subscribe("EVENT NAME", EVENT ACTIONS, CONDITION); in the condition function, you can check if the view is still in the DOM.
i.e.
var unsubscribe = function() {
return (this.$el.closest("body").length === 0);
};
PubSub.subscribe("addSomething",_.bind(this.addSomething, this), unsubscribe);
Then, you can invoke pub/sub via PubSub.pub("addSomething"); in other places and not to worry about duplicating actions.
Of course, there are trade-offs, but this way not seems to be that difficult.

Categories