Viewmodel retained in memory

[Deepak Shakya]

Hi,

I am doing some testing with the memory usage in silverlight application using MVVM framework.

• I am using SimpleMVVMToolkit from Codeplex as a tool.
• This is a part of a test of my bigger application but the memory issue is same.
• In the sample app in the below link, please add reference to Teleri.Windows.Control
• Run the app commenting out the RadListBox or just using normal ListBox
• The result is that ItemListViewModel is not retained in memory

Now run the app using the RadListBox

You can see that the viewmodel is retained in memory. Looking at the Path to GC from JustTrace, ListItem<ITouchableItems> is holding the reference. This is same when I am using RadDiagram in my bid project. something related to ITouchable.

Could you please confirm if I am looking at this correctly?

App available from my SkDrive.

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=56C17B3FA2DE6729!1814

[George]

Hi Deepak,

Yes, we are aware of this memory leak with the touchable elements and we will try to improve our touchable framework in our further releases. I hope this is not a showstopper issue for you.

Regards,
George
the Telerik team

[Deepak Shakya]

Hi George,

Thanks for the response. 

This is kind of a showstopper as I have a navigational app with users switching between views often. And with one of the viewmodel registering to listen to the event fired by the mainviewmodel, several instances acting on this event creates a problem. Hope this will be fixed soon. Let me know if there is any workaround.

Will this be fixed in the internal builds or would I have to wait for the next release?

Cheers!

[Miro Miroslavov]

Hello Deepak,

We can confirm that the memory leak in RadListBox control will be fixed with the next internal build.
Regarding the RadDiagram, it might take more time. The fix is scheduled for the official Q3 release, but most probably it will be available in some of the internal builds. 

Kind regards,
Miro Miroslavov
the Telerik team

[Deepak Shakya]

Hi Miro,

Thanks for the explanation. Will wait.

Cheers!