Thanks for looking into that Mike, I appreciate it.
On Sep 21, 12:29 am, "Mike Alsup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've faced the same frustration. Why not just hide the displayed div
> > rather than removing it from the DOM? This would be my preference as
> > well. Perhaps as an option.
>
> Yeah, I should refactor it to behave that way; that makes good sense. Sorry
> for the frustration!
>
> > Does the example create a memory leak pattern via the circular
> > reference? I haven't checked it with drip, but it looks to me like a
> > leak scenario.
>
> Well, not exactly, but it does put the onus on you as the user to clean up
> your cache before page unload. Good point though, I hadn't considered that.
>
> @seedy: Your technique solves the "must cache" problem but you end up
> accumulating a lot of noise in the DOM because the blocking elements are
> never removed (but they're created every time).
>
> Mike
