On aliasing the Dispose name...

RE: On aliasing the Dispose name...

JosephCooney — Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:52:00 GMT

re: Close vs. Dispose...what about the SqlConnection class? It implements Close() and Dispose(). From looking at the dis-assembly it looks like Dispose() calls Close() but not the other way around (but that could just be me). I understand this may have been done for connection pooling reasons, but is still makes things somewhat confusing.

RE: On aliasing the Dispose name...

Michael Bouck — Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:03:00 GMT

Didn't know I was in the Jeff Richter camp! :-) I'm OK with this argument except for the fact that goal 1 is relying completely on the developer to "do the right thing" (i.e. implementing Dispose() explicitly and privately). I don't know about you, but I have seen best practices thrown out the window too many times to count (that's why smart pointers were so cool, right? It automatically saved the guy who didn't remember to AddRef()/Release() his interfaces (in most cases)). I've already seen violations of this rule in third party code and boy is it ugly when I see Dispose(), Close(), Release(), Free(), etc. all defined as public! Mostly though, and I might be being a bit pedantic, it's the "purity thing" (goal 3) that appeals to me. To be able to say, categorically, that DF is accomplished, always, in one way makes life easier on everyone. Sure, the VB guy is going to be a bit confused at first but I would argue he's going to be much more confused getting used to OOP in the first place. It's more orthogonal to see a random class in the object viewer which implements IDisposable and know that there is exactally one way to get rid of it. Having said that, if the majority still thinks this is the right way to go, I'd like to propose that the compiler at least emit a warning if Dispose() is aliased by a public method and is not explicitly implemeneted privately. FxCop isn't sufficient in my opinion, because the guy that is abusing goal 1 probably isn't running FxCop either...

RE: On aliasing the Dispose name...

Matthew Adams — Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:33:00 GMT

By an extraordinary coincidence, I was having this converstaion on Friday. Personally, I think that Dispose() is a big problem in the developer community at large. Whiilst it does provide a form of deterministic finalization, people associate the term 'finalize' with 'garbage collect', which Dispose() most certainly does not. Implementing Dispose() as an under the covers method to support the 'using' idiom is fine, but, otherwise, you should really provide an explicitly documented life-cycle management policy for your object, and a separate idiom is best for that (and hence *at least* a separate method). Personally, I prefer an Acquire/Release approach from an entirely separate manager for the limited resource, and Ian suggested a duration-of-work approach, rather like DataAdapter.Fill(). Whichever way you cut it, Dispose() is essential, when it is absolutely essential, but it is over-used and badly understood at the moment. And that makes it a dangerous tool.

RE: On aliasing the Dispose name...

Mickey Williams — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:14:00 GMT

Re: The earlier comment about Close vs. Dispose in SqlConnection... In SqlConnection, Close and Dispose are not the same thing. As expected, Dispose completely releases resources, and the instance can't be used for anything ever again, try it and you'll get an ObjectDisposed exception. On the other hand, SqlConnection.Close is similar, but enables you to reuse the same instance later. Dispose depends on Close to cleanup.

RE: On aliasing the Dispose name...

Jeffrey Richter — Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:21:00 GMT

Actually, I'm not opposed to FileStream offerring Close. What I am opposed to is "hiding" Dispose and forcing the FileStream variable to be cast to IDisposable in order to call Dispose. I'd be OK if both Close and Dispose were _equally_ callable.

RE: On aliasing the Dispose name...

Frank Hileman — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:04:00 GMT

I agree mostly with Jeffrey. Hiding Dispose just introduces unnecessary inconsistencies. But if people have to learn to use the .net framework, they will have to learn about Dispose, and as soon as they have learned, redundant functions such as Close just add confusion.

Disposal Anxiety

K. Scott Allen's Blog — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:51:00 GMT

Disposal Anxiety

K. Scott Allen's Blog — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:44:00 GMT

C#中Dispose和Close的区别！

Kevin Wan — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:06:06 GMT

当我们开发C#代码的时候，经常碰到一个问题，有些class提供Close()，有些class提供Dispose()，而且有些class里面还提供了Dispose(bool)，那么Dispose和Close到底有什么区别？

[转载]C#中Dispose和Close的区别

夏亚兵 — Thu, 17 May 2007 06:16:56 GMT

当我们开发C#代码的时候，经常碰到一个问题，有些class提供Close()，有些class提供Dispose()，那么Dispose和Close到底有什么区别？首先，Dispose和Close基本上...

C#中Dispose和Close的区别。

勤勤同学 — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:27:53 GMT

当我们开发C#代码的时候，经常碰到一个问题，有些class提供Close()，有些class提供Dispose()，那么Dispose和Close到底有什么区别？

[转]C#中Dispose和Close的区别！

菩提树下的杨过 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:09:41 GMT

原文地址:http://www.cnblogs.com/kevinwan/archive/2007/01/16/621869.html 当我们开发C#代码的时候，经常碰到一个问题，有些clas...

正确实现IDisposable Dispose和Close的区别

ljsql — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:48:41 GMT

正确实现IDisposable Dispose和Close的区别

??????????????? » Blog Archive » C#???Dispose???Close????????? | ????????????

Sun, 25 May 2008 06:25:55 GMT

PingBack from http://www.zuu.cn/1958.html

C#???Dispose???Close????????? | ???????????????

C#???Dispose???Close????????? | ??????????????? — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:46:00 GMT

PingBack from http://docman.cn/development/c-sharp/k-343822-14540/

[转]C#中Dispose和Close的区别！

菩提树下的杨过 — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:34:42 GMT

原文地址:http://www.cnblogs.com/kevinwan/archive/2007/01/16/621869.html 当我们开发C#代码的时候，经常碰到一个问题，有些clas...