I think so. But take a look at a built-in class in ASP.NET:
public sealed class HttpPostedFile
{
public Stream InputStream { get; } // Stream implements IDisposable
// other properties and methods
}
Suppose I have an instance of HttpPostedFile
called file
. Since there is no Dispose
method to explicitly invoke, file.InputStream.Dispose()
won't be invoked until it's destructed, which I think goes against the original intention of IDisposable
. I think the correct implementation should contain a standard IDisposable
implementation. So, if one of the members implements IDisposable
, the class needs to implement it too.
What are your opinions? It seems to be a bit complicated.
You should implement IDisposable when your class holds resources that you want to release when you are finished using them. Save this answer. Show activity on this post. When your class contains unmanaged objects, resources, opened files or database objects, you need to implement IDisposable .
If your class creates unmanaged resources, then you can implement IDisposable so that these resources will be cleaned up properly when the object is disposed of. You override Dispose and release them there.
By default, the garbage collector automatically calls an object's finalizer before reclaiming its memory. However, if the Dispose method has been called, it is typically unnecessary for the garbage collector to call the disposed object's finalizer.
We should use an IDisposable design pattern (or Dispose Pattern) when we need to dispose of unmanaged objects. For implementing the IDisposable design pattern, the class which deals with unmanaged objects directly or indirectly should implement the IDisposable interface.
In general, you should implement IDisposable
if you own the resource represented by the property - see this question for a discussion on this subject.
I'd say that because HttpPostedFile is instantiated during processing of an HTTP request, it doesn't own the stream, and hence doesn't dispose it. The stream will be disposed when the HTTP request processing finishes.
If your class creates one or more IDisposable
objects and holds the only references to them, then your class should almost certainly implement IDisposable
and dispose the IDisposable
objects it created. If one or more IDisposable
objects will be passed into the constructor of your class, then you need to consider a few scenarios:
IDisposable
after you're done with it, and will certainly know when it's no longer needed (the semantics of your class would let him know you're done with it).IDisposable
after you're done with it, and may not know when you're going to be done with it.For scenario #1, there's no need for you to implement IDisposable
, though it might not be a bad idea to implement a do-nothing IDisposable
handler and have your consumers use it, in case another scenario applies in future.
For scenario #2, your object should take ownership of the IDisposable
, and should Dispose
it when done. I don't really like having objects take unconditional ownership of IDisposable
s; I prefer to implement things as in #3.
There are two ways of handling #3. The one I prefer is for your object to take a parameter (either a Boolean
or an enum
) along with the IDisposable
, indicating whether it is supposed to take ownership of the IDisposable
. Your class unconditionally implements IDisposable
; the implementation disposes of any objects it has taken ownership of, but not those it hasn't. An alternative is to have two subclasses with a common base class - one subclass implements IDisposable
and the other does not. I prefer the former pattern, because it allows for the addition of a method to replace an IDisposable
with a new one (of which it may or may not take ownership). For example, if I were implementing a control with an Image
property, I would have a SetImage
method which with a parameter to specify whether the control should own the passed-in image; that method would Dispose
the old image if it owned it, and could then either take ownership of the new image or not.
bool OwnMyImage;
Image MyImage;
void SetImage(Image NewImage, bool TakeOwnership)
{
IDisposable oldDisposable; // Could reuse one variable for multiple IDisposables
if (OwnMyImage)
{
oldDisposable = Threading.Interlocked.Exchange(MyImage, null);
if (oldDisposable != null)
{
oldDisposable.Dispose();
}
}
OwmMyImage = TakeOwnership;
MyImage = NewImage;
}
Scenario #4 is complicated; the best way to handle it is probably for your object to implement IDisposable
by raising a Disposed
event. Your creator can use that event to do either Dispose
the object if you were the last one using it, or adjust a flag or counter so that other code will know the object shouldn't be left undisposed on your behalf.
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