Develop Reference

Implementing both IDisposable and IAsyncDisposable

Say I have a non-sealed class that does not deal with any unmanaged resources. I need to make a single async call during its disposing stage to do some clean up. There are no other managed resources to deal with.
From what I understand, in order to make the async clean up call, I must implement IAsyncDisposable and use the DisposeAsync() and DisposeAsyncCore() methods. But the guidance says that you should also implement the dispose pattern when you implement the async dispose pattern. This is all fine but there's nothing really I need to do in the Dispose().
So my question is, should the Dispose() logic be empty or do I need something to do the async cleanup in a synchronous way? (see comment in code about "What if anything should go here").
public class MyClass : IDisposable, IAsyncDisposable
{
private bool disposed;
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
public async ValueTask DisposeAsync()
{
await DisposeAsyncCore().ConfigureAwait(false);
Dispose(false);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!disposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
// What if anything should go here?
}
disposed = true;
}
}
protected virtual async ValueTask DisposeAsyncCore()
{
// Make async cleanup call here e.g. Database.CleanupAsync();
}
}

Example to those who still hesitate to implement both:
internal class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
foreach (var a in new B()){}
//IAsyncDisposable is not called - you leaking resources.
//No deadlocks in UI, no warning in compilation, nothing.
//So it is better to be on safe side and implement both
//because you never know how one will manage lifetime of your class.
}
public class B : IEnumerable, IAsyncEnumerable<object>
{
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator() => new A();
public IAsyncEnumerator<object> GetAsyncEnumerator(CancellationToken ct) => new A();
}
public class A : IAsyncEnumerator<object>, IEnumerator
{
public ValueTask DisposeAsync()
{
Console.WriteLine("Async Disposed");
return ValueTask.CompletedTask;
}
public bool MoveNext() => false;
public void Reset(){}
public ValueTask<bool> MoveNextAsync() => ValueTask.FromResult(false);
public object Current => null;
}
}
Conclusion
You can freely add support for async version only, but beware: some wraps, like foreach or older versions of DI containers (Ninject, StructureMap, etc), code generators like RestSharp, or proxy generators like Castle.Proxy might not support IAsyncDisposable. Failing to cast object to IDisposable will present hard to catch bugs in your app. Whereas if you do implement it, the worst thing that could happen is deadlock in finally block (if you do it through sync-over-async).
In general, it is better to support both operations if you plan to make it public API or you don't have control over your class lifetime (like in DI containers or other widely known wrappers).
How to
There is full Microsoft example on how to implement both of them in inheritable class (non-sealed, like in your example) - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/garbage-collection/implementing-disposeasync#implement-both-dispose-and-async-dispose-patterns
class ExampleConjunctiveDisposableusing : IDisposable, IAsyncDisposable
{
IDisposable? _disposableResource = new MemoryStream();
IAsyncDisposable? _asyncDisposableResource = new MemoryStream();
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(disposing: true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
public async ValueTask DisposeAsync()
{
await DisposeAsyncCore().ConfigureAwait(false);
Dispose(disposing: false);
#pragma warning disable CA1816 // Dispose methods should call SuppressFinalize
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
#pragma warning restore CA1816 // Dispose methods should call SuppressFinalize
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
{
_disposableResource?.Dispose();
(_asyncDisposableResource as IDisposable)?.Dispose();
_disposableResource = null;
_asyncDisposableResource = null;
}
}
protected virtual async ValueTask DisposeAsyncCore()
{
if (_asyncDisposableResource is not null)
{
await _asyncDisposableResource.DisposeAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
if (_disposableResource is IAsyncDisposable disposable)
{
await disposable.DisposeAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
else
{
_disposableResource?.Dispose();
}
_asyncDisposableResource = null;
_disposableResource = null;
}
}

Both implementations of dispose feature is from the callers point of view. Your class would then offer both mechanisms to dispose off any managed and unmanaged resources and the caller application decides what to choose. This also ensures that any consumer which is unable to make use of asynchronous patterns are not lost.
You do not really need to implement synchronous dispose if you are sure about or want to force asynchronous consumption of your class.
So depending on your vision of class usage, you can choose how to dispose objects. If you choose to keep both mechanisms, you can dispose all resources both ways.

As you have said, the class is non-sealed. For sealed classes, it's enough to implement I(Async)Disposable interface. The Disposable pattern exists because the derived class may want to add cleanup logic that can be either sync or async. You can't know. That's why you need to implement the whole pattern for sync and async cases.
For your question. Never block async call in sync Dispose method. It's a caller's responsibility to use your class correctly. If he decides to call Dispose instead of DisposeAsync and clear only sync resources it's his decision/mistake. If this async call in DisposeAsync is absolutely necessary for proper cleanup and it is controlled by you, consider adding sync equivalent to be used in Dispose method.

Should IDisposable::Dispose() be virtual

Say a factory for SomeDisposable actually is creating/returning a sort of watch dog Wrapper
public class Wrapper : SomeDisposable
{
public new /*:(*/ Dispose() { ... };
}
and the caller uses like
using (SomeDisposable sd = SomeDisposableFactory.Create(...))
{
} // Wrapper.Dispose() never called.
The Wrapper.Dispose() is never called. If Dispose() were virtual then Wrapper.Dispose() would be called.
The IDisposable interface does not guarantee that the other best practice method virtual Dispose(bool) actually exists or enforce that either be virtual so it cannot be generally relied on to exist (it is only a recommended pattern). Interfaces currently do not allow constraints on virtual.
What are some pros and cons for not making the recommended Dispose() pattern virtual which would have solved this particular dilemma. Should C# allow a way of forcing virtual methods via an interface (since abstract classes aren't popular as contract definitions).

No. The pattern actually says that Dispose() (non-virtual) should call a protected virtual void Dispose(bool) method. This guarantees that the base class Dispose call can pass up the hierarchy properly.
This is spelled out in the documentation for IDisposable:
It should provide one public, non-virtual Dispose() method and a protected virtual Dispose(Boolean disposing) method.
The Dispose() method must call Dispose(true) and should suppress finalization for performance.
The base type should not include any finalizers.

This is already solved.
Disposable types which are not sealed should use the common dispose pattern:
public class DisposableResourceHolder : IDisposable
{
private SafeHandle resource; // handle to a resource
public DisposableResourceHolder()
{
this.resource = ... // allocates the resource
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
{
// dispose managed resources.
if (resource != null) resource.Dispose();
}
// free unmanaged resources.
}
}

How to better implement .NET IDisposable classes?

Forgive me in advance if this question is a little too open-ended, but I've seen similar language discussion posts here so I figured I'd take the plunge.
Anyway, I have read several MSDN help pages and various other blogs on the subject of properly implementing IDisposable classes. I feel like I understand things pretty well, but I have to wonder if there's a flaw in the suggested class structure:
public class DisposableBase : IDisposable
{
private bool mDisposed;
~DisposableBase()
{
Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!mDisposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources
mManagedObject.Dispose();
}
// Dispose unmanaged resources
CloseHandle(mUnmanagedHandle);
mUnmanagedHandle = IntPtr.Zero;
mDisposed = true;
}
}
}
Anytime the above is supposed to serve as a base class, you rely on the implementer of the subclass to properly override the Dispose(bool) method where necessary. In short, derived classes must ensure they invoke the base Dispose(bool) method from within their overridden version. If not, the base class' unmanaged resources may never get freed, defeating the primary purpose of the IDisposable interface.
We all know the benefits of virtual methods, but it seems like in this case their design falls short. In fact, I think this particular shortcoming of virtual methods manifests itself frequently when trying to design visual components and similar base/derived class structures.
Consider the following change, using a protected event rather than a protected virtual method:
public class DisposeEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public bool Disposing { get; protected set; }
public DisposeEventArgs(bool disposing)
{
Disposing = disposing;
}
}
public class DisposableBase : IDisposable
{
private bool mDisposed;
protected event EventHandler<DisposeEventArgs> Disposing;
~DisposableBase()
{
Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
// This method is now private rather than protected virtual
private void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!mDisposed)
{
// Allow subclasses to react to disposing event
AtDisposing(new DisposeEventArgs(disposing));
if (disposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources
mManagedObject.Dispose();
}
// Dispose unmanaged resources
CloseHandle(mUnmanagedHandle);
mUnmanagedHandle = IntPtr.Zero;
mDisposed = true;
}
}
private void AtDisposing(DisposeEventArgs args)
{
try
{
EventHandler<DisposeEventArgs> handler = Disposing;
if (handler != null) handler(this, args);
}
catch
{
}
}
}
With this design, the base class' Dispose(bool) method will always be called, regardless of whether subclasses subscribe to the Disposing event or not. The biggest flaw that I can see with this revised setup is that there is no predetermined order for when event listeners are called. This could be problematic if there are multiple levels of inheritance, e.g. SubclassA's listener might be triggered before its child SubclassB's listener. Is this flaw serious enough to invalidate my revised design?
This design dilemma makes me wish there were some sort of modifier for methods that was similar to virtual but which would ensure that the base class' method was always called, even if a subclass overrode that function. If there's a better way to achieve this, I would greatly appreciate your suggestions.

You're using an event here when really you want to use an inheritance mechanism like virtual. For scenarios like this where I want to ensure my implementation is always called but want to allow for base class customization I use the following pattern
private void Dispose(bool disposing)
if (mDisposed) {
return;
}
if (disposing) {
mManagedObject.Dispose();
}
// Dispose unmanaged resources
CloseHandle(mUnmanagedHandle);
mUnmanagedHandle = IntPtr.Zero;
mDisposed = true;
DisposeCore(disposing);
}
protected virtual void DisposeCore(bool disposing) {
// Do nothing by default
}
With this pattern I've ensured my base class Dispose implementation will always be called. Derived classes can't stop me by simply forgetting to call a base method. They can still opt into the dispose pattern by overriding DisposeCore but they can't break the base class contract.

The derived class can simply re-implement IDisposable and thus prevent your dispose method from being called, so you can't ensure that either.
Personally I wouldn't use either pattern. I prefer building on SafeHandle and similar mechanisms, instead of implementing finalizers myself.

Consider making it apparent that Dispose is not being called so someone will catch it. Of course Debug.WriteLine will only be called when the code is compiled with DEBUG compiler directive defined.
public class DisposableBase : IDisposable
{
private bool mDisposed;
~DisposableBase()
{
if (!mDisposed)
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine ("Object not disposed: " + this + "(" + GetHashCode() + ")";
Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}

You can break it down:
A destructor (finalizer) is only needed for unmanaged resources.
Using a Safehandle can turn an unmanged resource into a managed resource.
Ergo: You won't need a destructor. That halves the Dispose pattern.
The reference design uses a virtual void Dispose(bool) to cater for the Base/Derived class problem. This puts the burden on the derived class to call base.Dispose(disposing), the core of your question. I use 2 approaches:
1) Prevent it. With a sealed base-class you won't have to worry.
sealed class Foo:IDisposable
{
void Dispose() { _member.Dispose(); }
}
2) Check it. Like #j-agent's answer but conditional. When performance could be an issue then you don't want the finalizers in Production code:
class Foo:IDisposable
{
void Dispose() { Dispose(true); }
[Conditional("TEST")] // or "DEBUG"
~Foo { throw new InvalidOperation("somebody forgot to Dispose") }
}

The destructor is going to be called no matter if any subclass overrides Dispose() (can be via override or new) but your destructor is going to be called ( ~DisposableBase() ) so i bet putting your logic for cleanup there can be a good starting point.
Here is an intersting article about destructors: http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/chandrahundigam/UnderstandingDestructors11192005021208AM/UnderstandingDestructors.aspx

Proper way to dispose of Quartz.NET?

I am using Quartz.NET in an application. What is the proper way to dispose of Quartz.NET.
Right now I am just doing
if (_quartzScheduler != null)
{
_quartzScheduler = null;
}
Is that enough or should I implement a dispose or something in the jobType class?
Seth

scheduler.Shutdown(waitForJobsToComplete: true);
Of course, if you're not on C# 4.0 yet, named parameters don't work:
scheduler.Shutdown(true);

This is not a complete example but might get you on the right path. I would implement something like this:
class customSchedulerClass : IDisposable
{
private Component component = new Component();
private bool disposed = false;
public void scheduleSomeStuff()
{
//This is where you would implement the Quartz.net stuff
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SupressFinalize(this);
}
private void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if(!this=disposed)
{
if(disposing)
{
component.dispose;
}
}
disposed = true;
}
}
Then with this you can do cool stuff like using statements:
public static void Main()
{
using (customSchedulerClass myScheduler = new customSchedulerClass())
{
c.scheduleSomeStuff();
}
console.WriteLine("Now that you're out of the using statement the resources have been disposed");
}
So basically by implementing you code while inheriting the functionality of IDisposable you can then us the using statement and when you're done it will cleanly dispose your resources and keep things nice and clean. (Disclaimer, again this is not a complete example, just to get you in the right direction).

The docs don't say anything about IScheduler implementing IDisposable. If you have custom job types that grab and hold resources (file locks, database connections), you can implement IDispoable and override Dispose() on your object to release resources.

Generally we don't need to set an object to null in order to dispose it off.
If an object contains unmanaged resources then it should implement IDisposable (and be called by all its clients).
You can refere this similar post.

Calling base.Dispose() automatically from derived classes

Edit - New Question
Ok lets rephrase the question more generically.
Using reflection, is there a way to dynamically call at runtime a base class method that you may be overriding. You cannot use the 'base' keyword at compile time because you cannot be sure it exists. At runtime I want to list my ancestors methods and call the ancestor methods.
I tried using GetMethods() and such but all they return are "pointers" to the most derived implementation of the method. Not an implementation on a base class.
Background
We are developing a system in C# 3.0 with a relatively big class hierarchy. Some of these classes, anywhere in the hierarchy, have resources that need to be
disposed of, those implement the IDisposable interface.
The Problem
Now, to facilitate maintenance and refactoring of the code I would like to find a way, for classes implementing IDisposable,
to "automatically" call base.Dispose(bDisposing) if any ancestors also implements IDisposable. This way, if some class higher up in the hierarchy starts implementing
or stops implementing IDisposable that will be taken care of automatically.
The issue is two folds.
First, finding if any ancestors implements IDisposable.
Second, calling base.Dispose(bDisposing) conditionally.
The first part, finding about ancestors implementing IDisposable, I have been able to deal with.
The second part is the tricky one. Despite all my
efforts, I haven't been able to call base.Dispose(bDisposing) from a derived class. All my attempts failed. They either caused
compilation errors or called the wrong Dispose() method, that is the most derived one, thus looping forever.
The main issue is that you cannot actually refer to base.Dispose() directly in your code if there is no such thing as an
ancestor implementing it (be reminded that there might have no ancestors yet implementing IDisposable, but I want the derived code to be ready when and if such
a thing happens in the future). That leave us with the Reflection mechanisms, but I did not find a proper way of doing it. Our code is quite filled with
advanced reflection techniques and I think I did not miss anything obvious there.
My Solution
My best shot yet was to have some conditional code using in commented code. Changing the IDisposable hierarchy would either break the build
(if no IDisposable ancestor exists) or throw an exception (if there are IDisposable ancestors but base.Dispose is not called).
Here is some code I am posting to show you what my Dispose(bDisposing) method looks like. I am putting this code at the end of all the Dispose()
methods throughout the hierarchy. Any new classes are created from templates that also includes this code.
public class MyOtherClassBase
{
// ...
}
public class MyDerivedClass : MyOtherClassBase, ICalibrable
{
private bool m_bDisposed = false;
~MyDerivedClass()
{
Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool bDisposing)
{
if (!m_bDisposed) {
if (bDisposing) {
// Dispose managed resources
}
// Dispose unmanaged resources
}
m_bDisposed = true;
Type baseType = typeof(MyDerivedClass).BaseType;
if (baseType != null) {
if (baseType.GetInterface("IDisposable") != null) {
// If you have no ancestors implementing base.Dispose(...), comment
// the following line AND uncomment the throw.
//
// This way, if any of your ancestors decide one day to implement
// IDisposable you will know about it right away and proceed to
// uncomment the base.Dispose(...) in addition to commenting the throw.
//base.Dispose(bDisposing);
throw new ApplicationException("Ancestor base.Dispose(...) not called - "
+ baseType.ToString());
}
}
}
}
So, I am asking is there a way to call base.Dispose() automatically/conditionally instead?
More Background
There is another mechanism in the application where all objects are registered with a main class. The class checks if they implement IDisposable.
If so, they are disposed of properly by the application. This avoids having the code using the classes to deal with
calling Dispose() all around by themselves. Thus, adding IDisposable to a class that has no ancestor history of IDisposable still works perfectly.

The standard pattern is for your base class to implement IDisposable and the non-virtual Dispose() method, and to implement a virtual Dispose(bool) method, which those classes which hold disposable resources must override. They should always call their base Dispose(bool) method, which will chain up to the top class in the hierarchy eventually. Only those classes which override it will be called, so the chain is usually quite short.
Finalizers, spelled ~Class in C#: Don't. Very few classes will need one, and it's very easy to accidentally keep large object graphs around, because the finalizers require at least two collections before the memory is released. On the first collection after the object is no longer referenced, it's put on a queue of finalizers to be run. These are run on a separate, dedicated thread which only runs finalizers (if it gets blocked, no more finalizers run and your memory usage explodes). Once the finalizer has run, the next collection that collects the appropriate generation will free the object and anything else it was referencing that isn't otherwise referenced. Unfortunately, because it survives the first collection, it will be placed into the older generation which is collected less frequently. For this reason, you should Dispose early and often.
Generally, you should implement a small resource wrapper class that only manages the resource lifetime and implement a finalizer on that class, plus IDisposable. The user of the class should then call Dispose on this when it is disposed. There shouldn't be a back-link to the user. That way, only the thing that actually needs finalization ends up on the finalization queue.
If you are going to need them anywhere in the hierarchy, the base class that implements IDisposable should implement the finalizer and call Dispose(bool), passing false as the parameter.
WARNING for Windows Mobile developers (VS2005 and 2008, .NET Compact Framework 2.0 and 3.5): many non-controls that you drop onto your designer surface, e.g. menu bars, timers, HardwareButtons, derive from System.ComponentModel.Component, which implements a finalizer. For desktop projects, Visual Studio adds the components to a System.ComponentModel.Container named components, which it generates code to Dispose when the form is Disposed - it in turn Disposes all the components that have been added. For the mobile projects, the code to Dispose components is generated, but dropping a component onto the surface does not generate the code to add it to components. You have to do this yourself in your constructor after calling InitializeComponent.

Personally, I think you might be better off handling this with something like FxCop. You should be able to write a rule that check so see if when an object is created that implements IDisposable that you use a using statement.
It seems a little dirty (to me) to automatically dispose an object.

There is not an "accepted" way of doing this. You really want to make your clean up logic (whether it runs inside of a Dispose or a finalizer) as simple as possible so it won't fail. Using reflection inside of a dispose (and especially a finalizer) is generally a bad idea.
As far as implementing finalizers, in general you don't need to. Finalizers add a cost to your object and are hard to write correctly as most of the assumptions you can normally make about the state of the object and the runtime are not valid.
See this article for more information on the Dispose pattern.

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace TestDisposeInheritance
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
classC c = new classC();
c.Dispose();
}
}
class classA: IDisposable
{
private bool m_bDisposed;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool bDisposing)
{
if (!m_bDisposed)
{
if (bDisposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources
Console.WriteLine("Dispose A");
}
// Dispose unmanaged resources
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
Console.WriteLine("Disposing A");
}
}
class classB : classA, IDisposable
{
private bool m_bDisposed;
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
base.Dispose();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
Console.WriteLine("Disposing B");
}
protected override void Dispose(bool bDisposing)
{
if (!m_bDisposed)
{
if (bDisposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources
Console.WriteLine("Dispose B");
}
// Dispose unmanaged resources
}
}
}
class classC : classB, IDisposable
{
private bool m_bDisposed;
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
base.Dispose();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
Console.WriteLine("Disposing C");
}
protected override void Dispose(bool bDisposing)
{
if (!m_bDisposed)
{
if (bDisposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources
Console.WriteLine("Dispose C");
}
// Dispose unmanaged resources
}
}
}
}

If you wanted to use [basetype].Invoke("Dispose"...) then you could implement the function call without the debugger complaining. Then later when the base type actually implements the IDisposable interface it will execute the proper call.

If you wanted to use [basetype].Invoke("Dispose"...) then you could implement the function call without the debugger complaining. Then later when the base type actually implements the IDisposable interface it will execute the proper call.

Try this. It's a one-line addition to the Dispose() method, and calls the ancestor's dispose, if it exists. (Note that Dispose(bool) is not a member of IDisposable)
// Disposal Helper Functions
public static class Disposing
{
// Executes IDisposable.Dispose() if it exists.
public static void DisposeSuperclass(object o)
{
Type baseType = o.GetType().BaseType;
bool superclassIsDisposable = typeof(IDisposable).IsAssignableFrom(baseType);
if (superclassIsDisposable)
{
System.Reflection.MethodInfo baseDispose = baseType.GetMethod("Dispose", new Type[] { });
baseDispose.Invoke(o, null);
}
}
}
class classA: IDisposable
{
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Disposing A");
}
}
class classB : classA, IDisposable
{
}
class classC : classB, IDisposable
{
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Disposing C");
Disposing.DisposeSuperclass(this);
}
}

public class MyVeryBaseClass {
protected void RealDispose(bool isDisposing) {
IDisposable tryme = this as IDisposable;
if (tryme != null) { // we implement IDisposable
this.Dispose();
base.RealDispose(isDisposing);
}
}
}
public class FirstChild : MyVeryBaseClasee {
//non-disposable
}
public class SecondChild : FirstChild, IDisposable {
~SecondChild() {
Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose() {
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
base.RealDispose(true);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool bDisposing) {
if (!m_bDisposed) {
if (bDisposing) {
}// Dispose managed resources
} // Dispose unmanaged resources
}
}
That way, you are responsible to implement right only the first class which is IDisposable.