The return value of setInterval is just a unique id you use to pass back to clearInterval. It’s not a structured object with any additional information, nor does it get set to null when you call clearTimeout.
Returns a value which can be used to cancel the timer. So, it would seem unlikely that they return the same value (unless they are reusing values and one of the timers has already been cancelled) Mozilla states it’s DOM level 0, but not part of the specification. (look at the bottom of the page) … Read more
If you want to set something on a timer, you can use JavaScript’s setTimeout or setInterval methods: setTimeout ( expression, timeout ); setInterval ( expression, interval ); Where expression is a function and timeout and interval are integers in milliseconds. setTimeout runs the timer once and runs the expression once whereas setInterval will run the … Read more
This can be one of logic to clear all interval… for (var i = 1; i < 99999; i++) window.clearInterval(i);
setInterval returns an ID which you then use to clear the interval. var intervalId; on.onclick = function() { if (intervalId) { clearInterval(intervalId); } intervalId = setInterval(fontChange, 500); }; off.onclick = function() { clearInterval(intervalId); };
Short answer: No, you can’t be sure. Yes, it can drift. Long answer: John Resig on the Accuracy of JavaScript Time and How JavaScript Timers Work. From the second article: In order to understand how the timers work internally there’s one important concept that needs to be explored: timer delay is not guaranteed. Since all … Read more
I think you have two controllers, one for each template like this: function Controller_1($scope…){ … } function Controller_2($scope…){ … } Well, when you switch from one template to another there’s an event that’s fired called $destroy, you can read up on it here http://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng.$rootScope.Scope#$destroy Let’s say I’m switching from the template with Controller_1 to the … Read more
Asynchronous implementation with JDK 1.8: public static void setTimeout(Runnable runnable, int delay){ new Thread(() -> { try { Thread.sleep(delay); runnable.run(); } catch (Exception e){ System.err.println(e); } }).start(); } To call with lambda expression: setTimeout(() -> System.out.println(“test”), 1000); Or with method reference: setTimeout(anInstance::aMethod, 1000); To deal with the current running thread only use a synchronous version: … Read more
EDIT: Yury’s answer is better. tl;dr IMO there is no memory leak. The positive slope is simply the effect of setInterval and setTimeout. The garbage is collected, as seen by sawtooth patterns, meaning by definition there is no memory leak. (I think). I’m not sure there is a way to work around this so-called “memory … Read more
From my comment: I would use setTimeout [docs] and always call it when the previous response was received. This way you avoid possible congestion or function stacking or whatever you want to call it, in case a request/response takes longer than your interval. So something like this: function refresh() { // make Ajax call here, … Read more