keeping object null is better than implementing Idisposable Interface

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

C#

namespace A1
{
    class A
    {
        public int m;
        public int n;
        public int F(A a)
        {
            a.m = 50;
            a.n = 40;

            return (a.m*a.n);
        }
    }
}

using A1;
namespace try_catch_Idisposabe
{
    class B
    {
        public static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            A a1=new A();
            try
            {
                a1.m = 10;
                a1.n = 30;
                int l = a1.F(a1);
                Console.WriteLine(l);
            }
            catch
            {
            }
            finally
             {
                    a1=null;
             }
        }
    }
}

Posted 24-Oct-13 2:08am

rishimuni

Updated 24-Oct-13 2:11am

phil.o

v2

Add a Solution

Comments

rishimuni 24-Oct-13 8:09am

How can I implement Idisposable interface for my class alo

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

OriginalGriff · Accepted Answer · 2013-10-24T02:29:00

In that example, your class "A" does not need to implement IDisposable: it does not contain anything which needs to be Disposed.
However, it is simple enough to do: MSDN does provide a guid which shows you how to do it properly Implement IDisposable[^]

You title however is not correct - setting a reference to null does not do the same thing as Disposing of a class instance, and it in no way does anything "better". If you use scarce resources in your class and do not implement IDisposable, then setting the reference to null does not release those resources - they remain in use until the Garbage Collector is called in and removes class instance, and frees it's resources - which may not happen for a very, very long time, and it is only normally triggered when memory is running low, not resources.

For example, if your class opens a file in it's constructor, and closes it in it's Dispose method, then setting the reference to null will leave the file open and in use until the Garbage Collector destroys your class instance. Until then, nothing inside or outside your application can access the file.

Pratik Bhuva · Accepted Answer · 2013-10-24T23:29:00

Use "using" statement when you want to deal with temporary object.
Using :"Defines a scope, outside of which an object or objects will be disposed."(From MSDN)
Ex :

C#

public static void main()
{
    using(A objA = new A())
    {
       //Your code related to object goes here. 
    }
}

Explore about using statement.
the question related to your search is here...
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/567138/when-should-i-use-using-blocks-in-c[^]

Hope This Help
-----------------
Pratik Bhuva

keeping object null is better than implementing Idisposable Interface

2 solutions

Solution 1

Solution 2

Add your solution here

Preview 0