If a class has an instance field that implements IDisposable then the containing class implements IDisposable and class that fields Dispose method from within its Dispose method.
public class A : IDisposable
{
public System.Drawing.Font font = new Font("Arial", 10.0f);
public void Dispose()
{
font.Dispose()
}
}
(I know I didn't do the dispose pattern correctly, but for sample code should be good enough)
If the field is a static field though where should the call to the field's Dispose be?
public class B
{
public static System.Drawing.Font font = new Font("Arial", 10.0f);
}
I could make class B implement IDisposable and have that call font.Dispose but if B.font is used again later on that would cause problems. As well as you'd have to remember that dispise accessing a static method you need to create an instance just to call Dispose.
I could also make a static Dispose method but then users have to remember to call Dispose and have to make sure they're the last user of it in the program.
Static fields are initialised when the type is loaded.
Therefore it logically it makes sense to dispose the object assigned to the static field when the containing type is unloaded.
However, types are not unloaded. There may be some exotic complication here around AppDomains, but I suspect that doesn't apply in your case.
Therefore I wouldn't dispose the instance, otherwise you will have a publicly available instance of an object that is unfit for use.
If the field is static, then maybe the intention is to have it last for the complete duration of the application? Because then it will only need to be disposed of when the application shuts down. And that will happen one way or the other, by itself-
If you plan to reassign the static field to different IDisposable objects several times during the lifetime of the application, then of course you would want to dispose the old object when you reassign. Maybe you could use a property for that? Not that I have thought a lot about it, but something like:
// private - don't write to this field from outside the property setter
static Font font = new Font("Arial", 10.0f));
public static Font Font
{
get
{
return font;
}
set
{
var oldFont = font;
if (oldFont != null)
oldFont.Dispose();
font = value;
}
}
You dispose of it like any other object. It doesn't make a difference. A static object is just an object that is available per class. It's still an instance of something. Granted, you probably wouldn't want to do this since after you dispose of it someone can still access it and get a ObjectDisposedException exception.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (Test.Instance)
{
}
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
}
public class Test:IDisposable
{
public static Test Instance = new Test();
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Disposed");
}
}
And the output is:
Disposed
Per your updated example:
public class A
{
public static System.Drawing.Font font = new Font("Arial", 10.0f));
}
You can just do A.font.Dispose() or using(A.font)
In general I think the idea is you really wouldn't have a public static disposable field since by making it static you imply it should be around for the lifetime of the application. If it has to be disposable you should could make it lazy and make it be thread-safely re-initializable, otherwise accessing it after disposing will throw exceptions. Or you can have a hook into your application end code and safely dispose of all static disposables there. You can register your disposable on start somewhere as well. Just an idea
You can't dispose a static class because there is no instance of it
Related
Every example I've ever seen of locking uses a private object to lock specific blocks of code, and Thread Synchronization (C#) gives the same kind of example, but also says "Strictly speaking, the object provided is used solely to uniquely identify the resource being shared among multiple threads, so it can be an arbitrary class instance. In practice, however, this object usually represents the resource for which thread synchronization is necessary." (Emphasis mine.) In my example here, and in my code, there is only one instance of "MyClass", which is running on its own thread, and a reference to it is passed around to various other classes.
Is it OK to lock on the MyClass reference and then call Ready(), or should I instead put a private object() within MyClass and lock on that, as shown in the LockedReady() method? Thank you for your answer, in advance.
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var uc = new UserClass();
uc.DoThings();
}
}
public class MyClass
{
public bool Ready()
{
//determine if the class is ready to perform its function
//assumes that the instance of MyClass is locked,
//as shown in UserClass.DoThings
}
private object _readyLock = new object();
public bool LockedReady()
{
lock (_readyLock)
{
//determine if the class is ready to perform its function
//no assumption made that the object is locked, as
//shown in AnotherClass.DoAnotherThing()
}
}
}
public class UserClass
{
private MyClass _myc;
public UserClass()
{
var t = new Thread(SetupMyClass);
t.Start();
}
private void SetupMyClass()
{
_myc = new MyClass();
}
public void DoThings()
{
lock(_myc)
{
if (_myc.Ready())
{
//Do things
}
}
}
public void DoOtherThings()
{
var ac = new AnotherClass(_myc);
ac.DoAnotherThing();
}
}
public class AnotherClass
{
private MyClass _myc;
public AnotherClass(MyClass myClass)
{
_myc = myClass;
}
public void DoAnotherThing()
{
if (_myc.LockedReady())
{
//do another thing
}
}
}
}
Functionally, it doesn't matter, one object doesn't perform better than the other, unless there is shared use of that object by other locking concerns.
With C#, it isn't uncommon to lock on the actual domain object, rather than a surrogate object for the lock. It is also common to see a member object used, and a common legacy example is the SyncRoot object on the early System.Collections. Either way works, as long as you use a reference type.
However, the argument to be made for using an internal surrogate lock object is one of encapsulation. It eliminates the possibility of external interference if a user of your class decides to use your class as a lock. Using an internal lock object protects your locks from external interference, so one could argue that locking is an implementation detail that should be hidden.
The important thing is to ensure it is correct and appropriate. Make sure your locking is done at an appropriate granularity. (For example, using a static lock object probably isn't the best approach for a non-singleton, and probably not even most singletons). In cases where your class has multiple mutually exclusive threaded operations, you don't want to lock on "this" or you have unnecessary contention. That is like having one red light for 2 non-overlapping intersections.
Consider situation when we have a class with couple of static methods that use one static object.
public class Person
{
private static PresonActions actions = new PresonActions();
public static void Walk()
{
actions.Walk();
}
}
I know that the life cycle of static members in asp.net apps is equals to appdomain life cycle.
So this means that the object is not destroyed and the resources are not deallocated until I'll restart the appdomain.
But if we will use a property to create an instance of class PresonActions each time something access it, will the object will be destroyed or not?
public class Person
{
private static PresonActions actions { get { return new PresonActions(); } }
public static void Walk()
{
actions.Walk();
}
}
thanks.
Static variable continuouse allocation is an Evil. Keep an eye on your memory consuption, especially if you are talking about server side component (ASP.NET).
To answer your question: GC collects when he can an object which none longer reference by anyone in application.
Do not do this. It's very easy jump into memory problems with this approach and after spend hours to profile and find memory leaks.
If you want to change an object content, write a function that updates object content, without creating a new instance of it.
In your second code example, the garbage collector will destroy the object some time after the call to actions.Walk(). The garbage collector does this in a non-deterministic fashion, i.e. you cannot determine when it will perform this operation.
If your type is using resources which you want to dispose of deterministically, then the type should implement IDisposable and it's implementation of the Dispose method should perform the disposal of those resources.
Consuming code can then either call this method directly or use a using block to dispose of the object which in turn disposes of it's resources.
e.g.:-
public class PresonActions : IDisposable
{
...
public void Dispose()
{
...
}
}
public class Person
{
public static void Walk()
{
using(var actions = new PresonActions())
{
actions.Walk();
}
}
}
Note that, since you are not using the instance for more than one method call, there is no point creating it in a static property. It can be created it within the method, which allows use of a using block.
iam using c# and have a question,how the static field is used to count the number of instances in a class,please calrify in terms of memory,thanks in advance.
To simply count the number of constructions, declare a static field and use Interlocked.Increment in your instance constructor to increment the static field in a thread-safe manner.
If you want to count live objects, you'll also need to Interlocked.Decrement that field in your finalizer (i.e. C# destructor). Note, however, that adding a finalizer will make objects go through the finalization queue, making the garbage collection less efficient.
Depending on how you define "live" object, you might alternatively be interested in adding Interlocked.Decrement in your IDisposable.Dispose implementation.
Simply add a counter to the constructor of your class
class MyClass
{
static int instanceCount = 0;
public MyClass()
{
instanceCount++;
}
}
The constructor runs every time an instance of the class is created. The static variable is shared by all instances of the created class.
You could use a constructor and destructor to achieve what you want, but you shouldn't really need to know how many instances of your class exist at any one time. It sounds like you're going about a problem in the wrong way.
class MyClass
{
static int instances = 0;
public MyClass()
{
instances++;
}
~MyClass()
{
instances--;
}
}
Note that a class's destructor won't be called immediately. It is up to the garbage collector to decide when it collects an instance of your class, and therefore when your destructor is called.
Something like
class someclass
{
private static int instanceCounter;
public someclass() { someclass.instanceCounter++; }
}
I asked a question earlier today, but I think I need to approach it in a different way (on top of that there was a "hang up" in regards to DataSet).
Here's a class that encapsulates the creation of a Font (in other words, it is reading data from an xml file and is creating a font, at runtime, based on what it reads from that file):
public class FontCreator
{
private Font m_TheFont = null;
public FontCreator( ... some parameters ... )
{
m_TheFont = GetTheFont();
}
public Font TheFont
{
return m_TheFont;
}
private Font GetTheFont()
{
// code, and more code, that eventually leads to:
Font f = new Font(fntFamily, fntSize, fntStyle);
return f;
}
}
The consumer of the FontCreator class looks something like:
public class TheConsumer()
{
private FontCreator m_FontCreator = null;
public TheConsumer()
{
m_FontCreator = new m_FontCreator( ... some parameters ... );
Initialize();
}
private void Initialize()
{
InitializeThis();
InitializeThat();
}
private void InitializeThis()
{
.... some code ...
SomeObject.ApplyFont(m_FontCreator.TheFont);
}
private void InitializeThat()
{
... some code ...
SomeObject.ApplyFont(m_FontCreator.TheFont);
}
}
What code do you add, and where, to ensure that "TheFont"'s Dispose method is explicitly called?
If you don't wish to maintain a reference to TheFont after it is initially used, then call it's Dispose method in your constructor, right after Initialize. If you wish to keep TheConsumer alive for a while and maintain a reference to TheFont, it gets more interesting. Two Options:
You can have TheFont's dispose method called from the Destructor of the TheConsumer object. This is not the common practice and has problems. Mainly, this is not called until garbage collection happens. Better is:
You can make the TheConsumer object itself implement IDisposable, and call TheFont.Dispose from TheConsumer.Dispose. Since TheConsumer implements IDisposable, the code that uses it should call its Dispose method.
Edit in response to harsh comment!
Yes, I should have made clear to only use 1 in addition to 2, if at all. I know all developers everywhere are supposed to notice when IDisposable is implemented, but they often don't. If the referenced managed resource might really remain around a long time and cause problems if not properly disposed, I sometimes have a safety Dispose() method call in the destructor of the object holding the reference. Is that so wrong? :)
public TheConsumer()
{
using (m_FontCreator = new m_FontCreator( ... some parameters ... ))
{
Initialize();
}
}
I am confused, if you want to quickly use the font creater object then implement IDisposable on the FontCreater and use
using(m_FontCreator = new FontCreater(....))
{
InitializeThis();
InitializeThat();
}
If you need to keep the instance of the FontCreater through the lifetime of TheConsumer, then implement IDisposable on both FontCreater and TheConsumer classes.
public class TheConsumer : IDisposable
{
void Dispose()
{
if(m_FontCreator != null)
m_FontCreator.Dispose();
}
}
then use TheConsumer class like so
using(TheConsumer consumer = new TheConsumer(....))
{
....
}
Answer 1: Avoid it. Don't keep objectsthat contain unmanaged resources around any longer than necessary.
Answer 2: If you do need the embedded fields as shown in your code, than both the FontCreator and the Consumer class need to implement IDisposable. But not a destructor (Finalizer).
The main argument for this is that FontCreator is the 'owner' of the Font and should therefore take responsibility. And the Consumer is responsible for the Creator in the same way.
As others have noted, it appears you can at least avoid the m_FontCreator field in the Consumer class. But it depends on the rest of the code, is m_FontCreator used elsewhere?
In a C# app, suppose I have a single global class that contains some configuration items, like so :
public class Options
{
int myConfigInt;
string myConfigString;
..etc.
}
static Options GlobalOptions;
the members of this class will be uses across different threads :
Thread1: GlobalOptions.myConfigString = blah;
while
Thread2: string thingie = GlobalOptions.myConfigString;
Using a lock for access to the GlobalOptions object would also unnecessary block when 2 threads are accessing different members, but on the other hand creating a sync-object for every member seems a bit over the top too.
Also, using a lock on the global options would make my code less nice I think;
if I have to write
string stringiwanttouse;
lock(GlobalOptions)
{
stringiwanttouse = GlobalOptions.myConfigString;
}
everywhere (and is this thread-safe or is stringiwanttouse now just a pointer to myConfigString ? Yeah, I'm new to C#....) instead of
string stringiwanttouse = GlobalOptions.myConfigString;
it makes the code look horrible.
So...
What is the best (and simplest!) way to ensure thread-safety ?
You could wrap the field in question (myConfigString in this case) in a Property, and have code in the Get/Set that uses either a Monitor.Lock or a Mutex. Then, accessing the property only locks that single field, and doesn't lock the whole class.
Edit: adding code
private static object obj = new object(); // only used for locking
public static string MyConfigString {
get {
lock(obj)
{
return myConfigstring;
}
}
set {
lock(obj)
{
myConfigstring = value;
}
}
}
The following was written before the OP's edit:
public static class Options
{
private static int _myConfigInt;
private static string _myConfigString;
private static bool _initialized = false;
private static object _locker = new object();
private static void InitializeIfNeeded()
{
if (!_initialized) {
lock (_locker) {
if (!_initialized) {
ReadConfiguration();
_initalized = true;
}
}
}
}
private static void ReadConfiguration() { // ... }
public static int MyConfigInt {
get {
InitializeIfNeeded();
return _myConfigInt;
}
}
public static string MyConfigString {
get {
InitializeIfNeeded();
return _myConfigstring;
}
}
//..etc.
}
After that edit, I can say that you should do something like the above, and only set configuration in one place - the configuration class. That way, it will be the only class modifying the configuration at runtime, and only when a configuration option is to be retrieved.
Your configurations may be 'global', but they should not be exposed as a global variable. If configurations don't change, they should be used to construct the objects that need the information - either manually or through a factory object. If they can change, then an object that watches the configuration file/database/whatever and implements the Observer pattern should be used.
Global variables (even those that happen to be a class instance) are a Bad Thing™
What do you mean by thread safety here? It's not the global object that needs to be thread safe, it is the accessing code. If two threads write to a member variable near the same instant, one of them will "win", but is that a problem? If your client code depends on the global value staying constant until it is done with some unit of processing, then you will need to create a synchronization object for each property that needs to be locked. There isn't any great way around that. You could just cache a local copy of the value to avoid problems, but the applicability of that fix will depend on your circumstances. Also, I wouldn't create a synch object for each property by default, but instead as you realize you will need it.