Which of the following two should I be using to make sure that all the cursors are closed?
Cursor c = getCursor();
if(c!=null && c.getCount()>0){
try{
// read values from cursor
}catch(..){}
finally{
c.close();
}
}//end if
OR
Cursor c = getCursor();
try{
if(c!=null && c.getCount()>0){
// read values from cursor
}//end if
}catch(..){
}finally{
c.close();
}
Please advise.
Neither, but the second one was closest.
I would use:
Cursor c = getCursor();
try {
if(c!=null && c.getCount()>0){
// do stuff with the cursor
}
}
catch(..) {
//Handle ex
}
finally {
if(c != null) {
c.close();
}
}
... or if you expect the cursor to be null frequently, you could turn it on its head a little bit:
Cursor c = getCursor();
if(c != null) {
try {
if(c.getCount()>0) {
// do stuff with the cursor
}
}
catch(..) {
//Handle ex
}
finally {
c.close();
}
}
This is even better:
The code:
Cursor c = query(....);
if (c != null) {
try {
while (c.moveToNext()) { // If empty or after last record it returns false.
// process row...
}
}
finally {
c.close();
}
}
Note that c
might be null in case of error or empty cursor. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/16108435/952135. I would report null return value in case of empty cursor as a bug, though.
Best practice is the one below:
Cursor c = null;
try {
c = query(....);
while (c.moveToNext()) { // If empty or next to last record it returns false.
// do stuff..
}
} finally {
if (c != null && !c.isClosed()) { // If cursor is empty even though should close it.
c.close();
c = null; // high chances of quick memory release.
}
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With