Do I need to destroy an object of my class

Should you set all the objects to null (Nothing in VB.NET) once you have finished with them?

I understand that in .NET it is essential to dispose of any instances of objects that implement the IDisposable interface to release some resources although the object can still be something after it is disposed (hence the isDisposed property in forms), so I assume it can still reside in memory or at least in part?

I also know that when an object goes out of scope it is then marked for collection ready for the next pass of the garbage collector (although this may take time).

So with this in mind will setting it to null speed up the system releasing the memory as it does not have to work out that it is no longer in scope and are they any bad side effects?

MSDN articles never do this in examples and currently I do this as I cannot see the harm. However I have come across a mixture of opinions so any comments are useful.

Replay

Karl is absolutely correct, there is no need to set objects to null after use. If an object implements IDisposable, just make sure you call IDisposable.Dispose() when you're done with that object (wrapped in a try..finally, or, a using() block). But even if you don't remember to call Dispose(), the finaliser method on the object should be calling Dispose() for you.

I thought this was a good treatment:

Digging into IDisposable

and this

Understanding IDisposable

There isn't any point in trying to second guess the GC and its management strategies because it's self tuning and opaque. There was a good discussion about the inner workings with Jeffrey Richter on Dot Net Rocks here: Jeffrey Richter on the Windows Memory Model and Richters book CLR via C# chapter 20 has a great treatment:

Another reason to avoid setting objects to null when you are done with them is that it can actually keep them alive for longer.

e.g.

void foo()
{
    var someType = new SomeType();
    someType.DoSomething();
    // someType is now eligible for garbage collection         

    // ... rest of method not using 'someType' ...
}

will allow the object referred by someType to be GC'd after the call to "DoSomething" but

void foo()
{
    var someType = new SomeType();
    someType.DoSomething();
    // someType is NOT eligible for garbage collection yet
    // because that variable is used at the end of the method         

    // ... rest of method not using 'someType' ...
    someType = null;
}

may sometimes keep the object alive until the end of the method. The JIT will usually optimized away the assignment to null, so both bits of code end up being the same.

No don't null objects. You can check out http://codebetter.com/blogs/karlseguin/archive/2008/04/27/foundations-of-programming-pt-7-back-to-basics-memory.aspx for more information, but setting things to null won't do anything, except dirty your code.

Also:

using(SomeObject object = new SomeObject())
{
  // do stuff with the object
}
// the object will be disposed of

In general, there's no need to null objects after use, but in some cases I find it's a good practice.

If an object implements IDisposable and is stored in a field, I think it's good to null it, just to avoid using the disposed object. The bugs of the following sort can be painful:

this.myField.Dispose();// ... at some later timethis.myField.DoSomething();

It's good to null the field after disposing it, and get a NullPtrEx right at the line where the field is used again. Otherwise, you might run into some cryptic bug down the line (depending on exactly what DoSomething does).

Chances are that your code is not structured tightly enough if you feel the need to null variables.

There are a number of ways to limit the scope of a variable:

As mentioned by Steve Tranby

using(SomeObject object = new SomeObject()) {  // do stuff with the object}// the object will be disposed of

Similarly, you can simply use curly brackets:

{    // Declare the variable and use it    SomeObject object = new SomeObject()}// The variable is no longer available

I find that using curly brackets without any "heading" to really clean out the code and help make it more understandable.

In general no need to set to null. But suppose you have a Reset functionality in your class.

Then you might do, because you do not want to call dispose twice, since some of the Dispose may not be implemented correctly and throw System.ObjectDisposed exception.

private void Reset()
{
    if(_dataset != null)
    {
       _dataset.Dispose();
       _dataset = null;
    }
    //..More such member variables like oracle connection etc. _oraConnection
 }

The only time you should set a variable to null is when the variable does not go out of scope and you no longer need the data associated with it

The only time you should set a variable to null is when the variable does not go out of scope and you no longer need the data associated with it. Otherwise there is no need.

There are some cases where it makes sense to null references. For instance, when you're writing a collection--like a priority queue--and by your contract, you shouldn't be keeping those objects alive for the client after the client has removed them from the queue.

But this sort of thing only matters in long lived collections. If the queue's not going to survive the end of the function it was created in, then it matters a whole lot less.

On a whole, you really shouldn't bother. Let the compiler and GC do their jobs so you can do yours.

Take a look at this article as well: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/idisposable.aspx

For the most part, setting an object to null has no effect. The only time you should be sure to do so is if you are working with a "large object", which is one larger than 84K in size (such as bitmaps).

this kind of "there is no need to set objects to null after use" is not entirely accurate. There are times you need to NULL the variable after disposing it.

Yes, you should ALWAYS call .Dispose() or .Close() on anything that has it when you are done. Be it file handles, database connections or disposable objects.

Separate from that is the very practical pattern of LazyLoad.

Say I have and instantiated ObjA of class A. Class A has a public property called PropB of class B.

Internally, PropB uses the private variable of _B and defaults to null. When PropB.Get() is used, it checks to see if _PropB is null and if it is, opens the resources needed to instantiate a B into _PropB. It then returns _PropB.

To my experience, this is a really useful trick.

Where the need to null comes in is if you reset or change A in some way that the contents of _PropB were the child of the previous values of A, you will need to Dispose AND null out _PropB so LazyLoad can reset to fetch the right value IF the code requires it.

If you only do _PropB.Dispose() and shortly after expect the null check for LazyLoad to succeed, it won't be null, and you'll be looking at stale data. In effect, you must null it after Dispose() just to be sure.

I sure wish it were otherwise, but I've got code right now exhibiting this behavior after a Dispose() on a _PropB and outside of the calling function that did the Dispose (and thus almost out of scope), the private prop still isn't null, and the stale data is still there.

Eventually, the disposed property will null out, but that's been non-deterministic from my perspective.

The core reason, as dbkk alludes is that the parent container (ObjA with PropB) is keeping the instance of _PropB in scope, despite the Dispose().

Some object suppose the .dispose() method which forces the resource to be removed from memory.

Category: c# Time: 2008-08-05 Views: 1

Related post

iOS development

Android development

Python development

JAVA development

Development language

PHP development

Ruby development

search

Front-end development

Database

development tools

Open Platform

Javascript development

.NET development

cloud computing

server

Copyright (C) avrocks.com, All Rights Reserved.

processed in 0.348 (s). 12 q(s)