On 2011-01-16, at 10:08 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote: > I'm sure developers would > love if the frameworks *did* manage memory correctly.
In the absence of page/swap space for modified memory, I'm not sure what 'correctly' means. :-) To my way of thinking, the problem is that there's no well-defined "and now we're back" notification. Re-using the method that's normally called to load the startup state of a view doesn't quite cut it when the view should actually represent on-going state changes. Maybe an approach is to use didReceiveMemoryWarning to create a record of differences vs. startup and, if not nil, apply those in viewDidAppear. Another thought would be for the framework to have a 'dirty' flag to control whether a view could be unloaded/reloaded without harm. I guess I'll look at the possibility of preventing unloading (at least of the detail view), perhaps in combination with my own 'dirty' indicator. _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
