Develop Reference

Declaring and disposing a local variable in a function/method in .Net

Until recently it never really bothered me as to how to best declare and dispose of a local variable but I thought I'd ask once and for all and get some feedback as it's starting to bug me more and more these days.
When creating a function/method that creates a local object, which method is best to create and dispose of the object.
For simplicity sake, assume that the method of the object being called will never generate an exception i.e. ConvertThisToString
private string myFirstFunction()
{
MyDataType myObject = null;
try
{
myObject = new MyDataType();
return myOjbect.ConvertThisToString();
}
finally
{
myObject = null;
}
}
or
private string mySecondFunction()
{
MyDataType myObject = new MyDataType();
return myOjbect.ConvertThisToString();
}
Are both functions ok and is it just about coding preferences or is there one method that's better than the other? Why?
My opinion is that one always requires the try/catch in order to nullify the object, which might be an overkill of try/catch for nullifying's sake, while the other method doesn't call any explicit way to destroy the object, which might be to reliant on .NET GC to release it from memory.
Should I be using the "using" statement instead?
Well, this is probably an incorrect statement. Is a local object immediately destroyed and disposed of when leaving a function or will it be cleared at a later stage by the GC management or other.
Thanks for feedback.
Thierry
UPDATED:
Removed the catch block as it caused confusion in my question. Should haven't been there in the first place since I did say, no error would ever occur.

That's very wrong.
Don't swallow exceptions.
Assigning a variable to null at the end of its scope will not help the GC at all.
If your object actually has expensive resources, it should implement IDisposable (correctly!), and you should dispose it using a using statement (but only when you're finished with it!)

You don't need to assign to null. When the object leaves scope, it will automatically be eligible for GC. There is no need to do anything special.
Basically, just write the second, simple version.
Should I be using the "using" statement instead?
If your object is wrapping resources (not memory allocated via new ..., but native resources) and implements IDisposable, then yes, you should use the using statement to guarantee those are cleaned up.
Is a local object immediately destroyed and disposed of when leaving a function or will it be cleared at a later stage by the GC management or other.
It will become eligible to be collected. At some point in the future, the GC will clean it up, but the time when this happens in indeterminant.

The best approach here is the Using statement.
something like this:
private string myFirstFunction()
{
using(MyDataType myObject = new MyDataType())
{
return myObject.ConvertThisToString();
}
}
this will dispose the object after execution.

As with almost everything, it all depends on what object you are using. If the object you are creating implements IDisposable then you would be best served to place in a using (typically). Outside of that most objects will get cleaned up by the garbage collector. IF you are the producer of a class that accesses COM objects then as the producer you should have provided a away for a proper cleanup, e.g. implement the IDisposable interface and handle the Dispose() correctly. As others have commented swallowing exceptions or even try/catching EVERY method doesn't seem like a reasonable or good idea. If a call you are making has the potential of throwing an exception and you have unmanaged or leaky objects then you should handle via a try/finally or a using (again, if appropriate).

You don't need to use a try/catch/finally to set a variable to null. The .NET GC will clear up any unreferenced classes when a method ends in it's own time.
If you are doing something really intensive (more so than your sample shows) then you can set the variable reference to null as a pointer to the GC that this is no longer referenced. This will only make a difference to your program if you are doing something which ends up marking the variable reference for Gen2 collection and then you do more stuff which prevents the GC collecting your variable (because the scope has not been left - in this case the method).
This is a bit of an extreme case as the .NET GC is designed to remove this aspect of programming from your daily concern, and regardless, it should get cleared up when the scope ends - it might just a bit longer.
You use 'using' if the referenced object implements IDisposable, and you do this typically to release unmanaged resources - though there may be other reasons why a class implements this interface.
Your first method is total overkill... it should just be as described in MySecondFunction(), and just don't swallow exceptions (I'm referring to the empty catch block) like that - because it leads to buggy, unmaintanable code! :)

For Microsoft built classes that inherit IDisposable, do I explicitly have to call Dispose?

Regarding the Microsoft built classes that inherit IDisposable, do I explicitly have to call Dispose to prevent memory leaks?
I understand that it is best practice to call Dispose (or better yet use a using block), however when programming, typically I don't always immediately realise that a class inherits from IDisposable.
I also understand that Microsoft implementation of IDisposable is a bit borked, which is why they created the article explaining the correct usage of IDisposable.
Long story short, in which instances is it okay to forget to call Dispose?

There are a couple of issues in the primary question
Do I explicitly have to call Dispose to prevent memory leaks?
Calling Dispose on any type which implements IDisposable is highly recomended and may even be a fundamental part of the types contract. There is almost no good reason to not call Dispose when you are done with the object. An IDisposable object is meant to be disposed.
But will failing to call Dispose create a memory leak? Possibly. It's very dependent on what exactly that object does in it's Dispose method. Many free memory, some unhook from events, others free handles, etc ... It may not leak memory but it will almost certainly have a negative effect on your program
In which instances is it okay to forget to call Dispose?
I'd start with none. The vast majority of objects out there implement IDisposable for good reason. Failing to call Dispose will hurt your program.

It depends on two things:
What happens in the Dispose method
Does the finalizer call Dispose
Dispose functionlity
Dispose can do several type of actions, like closing a handle to a resource (like file stream), change the class state and release other components the class itself uses.
In case of resource being released (like file) there's a functionality difference between calling it explicitly and waiting for it to be called during garbage collection (assuming the finalizer calls dispose).
In case there's no state change and only components are released there'll be no memory leak since the object will be freed by the GC later.
Finalizer
In most cases, disposable types call the Dispose method from the finalizer. If this is the case, and assuming the context in which the dispose is called doesn't matter, then there's a high chance that you'll notice no difference if the object will not be disposed explicitly. But, if the Dispose is not called from the finalizer then your code will behave differently.
Bottom line - in most cases, it's better to dispose the object explicitly when you're done with it.
A simple example to where it's better to call Dispose explicitly: Assuming you're using a FileStream to write some content and enable no sharing, then the file is locked by the process until the GC will get the object. The file may also not flush all the content to the file so if the process crashes in some point after the write was over it's not guaranteed that it will actually be saved.

It can be safe to not call Dispose, but the problem is knowing when this is the case.
A good 95% of IEnumerator<T> implementations have a Dispose that's safe to ignore, but the 5% is not just 5% that'll cause a bug, but 5% that'll cause a nasty hard to trace bug. More to the point, code that gets passed an IEnumerator<T> will see both the 95% and the 5% and won't be able to dynamically tell them apart (it's possible to implement the non-generic IEnumerable without implementing IDisposable, and how well that turned out can be guessed at by MS deciding to make IEnumerator<T> inherit from IDisposable!).
Of the rest, maybe there's 3 or 4% of the time it's safe. For now. You don't know which 3% without looking at the code, and even then the contract says you have to call it, so the developer can depend on you doing so if they release a new version where it is important.
In summary, always call Dispose(). (I can think of an exception, but it's frankly too weird to even go into the details of, and it's still safe to call it in that case, just not vital).
On the question of implementing IDisposable yourself, avoid the pattern in that accursed document.
I consider that pattern an anti-pattern. It is a good pattern for implementing both IDisposable.Dispose and a finaliser in a class that holds both managed and unmanaged resources. However holding both managed IDisposable and unmanaged resources is a bad idea in the first place.
Instead:
If you have an unmanaged resource, then don't have any unmanaged resources that implement IDisposable. Now the Dispose(true) and Dispose(false) code paths are the same, so really they can become:
public class HasUnmanaged : IDisposable
{
IntPtr unmanagedGoo;
private void CleanUp()
{
if(unmanagedGoo != IntPtr.Zero)
{
SomeReleasingMethod(unmanagedGoo);
unmanagedGoo = IntPtr.Zero;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
CleanUp();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
~HasUnmanaged()
{
CleanUp();
}
}
If you have managed resources that need to be disposed, then just do that:
public class HasUnmanaged : IDisposable
{
IDisposable managedGoo;
public void Dispose()
{
if(managedGoo != null)
managedGoo.Dispose();
}
}
There, no cryptic "disposing" bool (how can something be called Dispose and take false for something called disposing?) No worrying about finalisers for the 99.99% of the time you won't need them (the second pattern is way more common than the first). All good.
Really need something that has both a managed and an unmanaged resource? No, you don't really, wrap the unmanaged resource in a class of your own that works as a handle to it, and then that handle fits the first pattern above and the main class fits the second.
Only implement the CA10634 pattern when you're forced to because you inherited from a class that did so. Thankfully, most people aren't creating new ones like that any more.

It is never OK to forget to call Dispose (or, as you say, better yet use using).
I guess if the goal of your program is to cause unmanaged resource leaks. Then maybe it would be OK.

The implementation of IDisposable indicates that a class uses un-managed resources. You should always call Dispose() (or use a using block when possible) when you're sure you're done with the class. Otherwise you are unnecessarily keeping un-managed resources allocated.
In other words, never forget to call Dispose().

Yes, always call dispose. Either explicitly or implicitly (via using). Take, for example, the Timer class. If you do not explicitly stop a timer, and do not dispose it, then it will keep firing until the garbage collector gets around to collecting it. This could actually cause crashes or unexpected behavior.
It's always best to make sure Dispose is called as soon as you are done with it.

Microsoft (probably not officially) says it is ok to not call Dispose in some cases.
Stephen Toub from Microsoft writes (about calling Dispose on Task):
In short, as is typically the case in .NET, dispose aggressively if
it's easy and correct to do based on the structure of your code. If
you start having to do strange gyrations in order to Dispose (or in
the case of Tasks, use additional synchronization to ensure it's safe
to dispose, since Dispose may only be used once a task has completed),
it's likely better to rely on finalization to take care of things. In
the end, it's best to measure, measure, measure to see if you actually
have a problem before you go out of your way to make the code less
sightly in order to implement clean-up functionality.
[bold emphasize is mine]
Another case is base streams
var inner = new FileStrem(...);
var outer = new StreamReader(inner, Encoding.GetEncoding(1252));
...
outer.Dispose();
inner.Dispose(); -- this will trigger a FxCop performance warning about calling Dispose twice.
(I have turned off this rule)

Occasions when the using statement and IDisposable should never be used

I was reading about this scenario where making use of the C# using statement can cause problems. Exceptions thrown within the scope of the using block can be lost if the Dispose function called at the end of the using statement was to throw an exception also. This highlights that care should be taken in certain cases when deciding whether to add the using statement.
I only tend to make use of using statements when using streams and the classes derived from DbConnection. If I need to clean up unmanaged resources, I would normally prefer to use a finally block.
This is another use of the IDisposable interface to create a performance timer that will stop the timer and log the time to the registry within the Dispose function.
http://thebuildingcoder.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/performance-profiling.html
Is this good use of the IDisposable interface? It is not cleaning up resources or disposing of any further objects. However, I can see how it could clean up the calling code by wrapping the code it is profiling neatly in a using statement.
Are there times when the using statement and the IDisposable interface should never be used? Has implementing IDisposable or wrapping code in a using statement caused problems for you before?
Thanks

I would say, always use using unless the documentation tells you not to (as in your example).
Having a Dispose method throw exceptions rather defeats the point of using it (pun intended). Whenever I implement it, I always try to ensure that no exceptions will be thrown out of it regardless of what state the object is in.
PS: Here's a simple utility method to compensate for WCF's behaviour. This ensures that Abort is called in every execution path other than when Close is called, and that errors are propogated up to the caller.
public static void CallSafely<T>(ChannelFactory<T> factory, Action<T> action) where T : class {
var client = (IClientChannel) factory.CreateChannel();
bool success = false;
try {
action((T) client);
client.Close();
success = true;
} finally {
if(!success) {
client.Abort();
}
}
}
If you find any other funny behaviour cases elsewhere in the framework, you can come up with a similar strategy for handling them.

The general rule of thumb is simple: when a class implements IDisposable, use using. When you need to catch errors, use try/catch/finally, to be able to catch the errors.
A few observations, however.
You ask whether situations exist where IDisposable should not be used. Well: in most situations you shouldn't need to implement it. Use it when you want to free up resources timely, as opposed to waiting until the finalizer kicks in.
When IDisposable is implemented, it should mean that the corresponding Dispose method clears its own resources and loops through any referenced or owned objects and calls Dispose on them. It should also flag whether Dispose is called already, to prevent multiple cleanups or referenced objects to do the same, resulting in an endless loop. However, all this is no guarantee that all references to the current object are gone, which means it will remain in memory until all references are gone and the finalizer kicks in.
Throwing exceptions in Dispose is frowned upon and when it happens, state is possibly not guaranteed anymore. A nasty situation to be in. You can fix it by using try/catch/finally and in the finally block, add another try/catch. But like I said: this gets ugly pretty quickly.
Using using is one thing, but don't confuse it with using try/finally. Both are equal, but the using-statement makes life easier by adding scoping and null-checks, which is a pain to do by hand each time. The using-statement translates to this (from C# standard):
{
SomeType withDispose = new SomeType();
try
{
// use withDispose
}
finally
{
if (withDispose != null)
{
((IDisposable)withDispose).Dispose();
}
}
}
There are occasions where wrapping an object into a using-block is not necessary. These occasions are rare. They happen when you find yourself inheriting from an interface that inherits from IDisposable just in case a child would require disposing. An often-used example is IComponent, which is used with every Control (Form, EditBox, UserControl, you name it). And I rarely see people wrapping all these controls in using-statements. Another famous example is IEnumerator<T>. When using its descendants, one rarely sees using-blocks either.
Conclusion
Use the using-statement ubiquitously, and be judicious about alternatives or leaving it out. Make sure you know the implications of (not) using it, and be aware of the equality of using and try/finally. Need to catch anything? Use try/catch/finally.

I think the bigger problem is throwing exceptions in Dispose. RAII patterns usually explicitly state that such should not be done, as it can create situations just like this one. I mean, what is the recovery path for something not disposing correctly, other than simply ending execution?
Also, it seems like this can be avoided with two try-catch statements:
try
{
using(...)
{
try
{
// Do stuff
}
catch(NonDisposeException e)
{
}
}
}
catch(DisposeException e)
{
}
The only problem that can occur here is if DisposeException is the same or a supertype of NonDisposeException, and you are trying to rethrow out of the NonDisposeException catch. In that case, the DisposeException block will catch it. So you might need some additional boolean marker to check for this.

The only case I know about is WCF clients. That's due to a design bug in WCF - Dispose should never throw exceptions. They missed that one.

One example is the IAsyncResult.AsyncWaitHandle property. The astute programmer will recognize that WaitHandle classes implement IDisposable and naturally try to greedily dispose them. Except that most of the implementations of the APM in the BCL actually do lazy initialization of the WaitHandle inside the property. Obviously the result is that the programmer did more work than was necessary.
So where is the breakdown? Well, Microsoft screwed up the IAsyncResult inteface. Had they followed their own advice IAsyncResult would have derived from IDisposable since the implication is that it holds disposable resources. The astute programmer would then just call Dispose on the IAsyncResult and let it decide how best to dispose its constituents.
This is one of the classic fringe cases where disposing of an IDisposable could be problematic. Jeffrey Richter actually uses this example to argue (incorrectly in my opinion) that calling Dispose is not mandatory. You can read the debate here.

Using Dispose on a Singleton to Cleanup Resources

The question I have might be more to do with semantics than with the actual use of IDisposable. I am working on implementing a singleton class that is in charge of managing a database instance that is created during the execution of the application. When the application closes this database should be deleted.
Right now I have this delete being handled by a Cleanup() method of the singleton that the application calls when it is closing. As I was writing the documentation for Cleanup() it struck me that I was describing what a Dispose() method should be used for i.e. cleaning up resources. I had originally not implemented IDisposable because it seemed out of place in my singleton, because I didn't want anything to dispose the singleton itself. There isn't currently, but in the future might be a reason that this Cleanup() might be called but the singleton should will need to still exist. I think I can include GC.SuppressFinalize(this); in the Dispose method to make this feasible.
My question therefore is multi-parted:
1) Is implementing IDisposable on a singleton fundamentally a bad idea?
2) Am I just mixing semantics here by having a Cleanup() instead of a Dispose() and since I'm disposing resources I really should use a dispose?
3) Will implementing 'Dispose()' with GC.SuppressFinalize(this); make it so my singleton is not actually destroyed in the case I want it to live after a call to clean-up the database.

Implementing IDisposable for singleton might be good idea if you use a CAS techinque instead of locks to create a singleton. Something like this.
if (instance == null) {
var temp = new Singleton();
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref instance, temp, null) != null) &&
temp is IDisposable) {
((IDisposable)temp).Dispose();
}
}
return instance
We created a temporary object and tried atomic Compare-and-Swap so we need to dispose this temporary object if it impletents IDisposable and it wasn't written to instance's location.
It might be good to avoid locks but also it's a bit overhead if some heavy logic is used to create a singleton's instance in its constructor.
If you don't want other code to cleanup or dispose your object just don't provide any opportunity for this. However, it might be good idea to provide some kind of reset() method to allow singleton to recreate itself if, let say, you use a lazy init. Something like this:
public static Singletong GetInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Singleton(); //here we re-evalute cache for example
}
return instance
}
public static void Reset() {
instance = null;
}

In short, if you have a singleton and you call dispose. Any time that any object tries to use it after that, will be using an object in a disposed state.
Now putting it in, and disposing of the object after the application is done with it, isn't necessarily bad. You do have to be careful though when you call it. If you are really concerned with the cleanup and you have only one reference to it, you can put the clean up code in the objects finalizer ~YourClass that way it will only be called with .Net is sure it is no longer needed (when the application closes, if it is a true singleton).
Am I just mixing semantics here by
having a Cleanup() instead of a
Dispose() and since I'm disposing
resources I really should use a
dispose?
Yes, this is just semantics. Dispose is the standard for showing there are things that need to be cleared up after the program is done with the object.
Will implementing 'Dispose()' with
GC.SuppressFinalize(this); make it so
my singleton is not actually destroyed
in the case I want it to live after a
call to clean-up the database.
No what this means is that when you call the dispose method, the Garbage Collector won't call the object's custom finalizer.

I agree with Kevin's answer, but like to add something to this. I'm a bit confused about your statement:
When the application closes this
database should be deleted.
Do you really mean deleted? As in destroyed? Are you talking about a real (SQL) database?
You must understand that even if you put your clean up code in a finalizer, or in the Application_End event (ASP.NET) there is no way you can guarantee these are called. The process can be terminated, or the computer loses power. It seems more reasonable to delete the database on application startup, or at least have a fallback mechanism at startup with some cleanup.
While the finalizer would be a good place to put cleanup when dealing with resources, in your case we're talking about an application resource. What I mean by this is that the resource isn't perhaps bound to a single object (your singleton) but is part of the whole application. This can get a bit an abstract discussion, and it's perhaps more a matter of view.
What I'm trying to say it that when you see that database as a application resource, you will have to have your initialization and cleanup not bound to an object, but to the application. In an ASP.NET application this would be Application_Start and Application_End (global.asax). In an Windows Forms application, this would be Program.Main.
Still, when using these mechanisms over finalizers, you have no certainty that your clean up code will execute.

How do I track down where I've been leaking IDisposable objects from?

I've been debugging some code recently that was a bit memory leaky. It's a long running program that runs as a Windows service.
If you find a class wearing an IDisposable interface, it is telling you that some of the resources it uses are outside the abilities of the garbage collector to clean up for you.
The reason it is telling you this is that you, the user of this object, are now responsible for when these resources are cleaned up. Congratulations!
As a conscientious developer, you are nudged towards calling the .Dispose() method when you've finished with the object in order to release those unmanaged resources.
There is the nice using() pattern to help clean up these resources once they are finished with. Which just leaves finding which exact objects are causing the leakyness?
In order to aid tracking down these rogue unmanaged resources, is there any way to query what objects are loitering around waiting to be Disposed at any given point in time?

There shouldn't be any cases where you don't want to call Dispose, but the compiler cannot tell you where you should call dispose.
Suppose you write a factory class which creates and returns disposable objects. Should the compiler bug you for not calling Dispose when the cleanup should be the responsibility of your callers?

IDisposable is more for making use of the using keyword. It's not there to force you to call Dispose() - it's there to enable you to call it in a slick, non-obtrusive way:
class A : IDisposable {}
/// stuff
using(var a = new A()) {
a.method1();
}
after you leave the using block, Dispose() is called for you.

"Is there any way to detect at the end of the program which objects are loitering around waiting to be Disposed?"
Well, if all goes well, at the end of the program the CLR will call all object's finalizers, which, if the IDisposable pattern was implemented properly, will call the Dispose() methods. So at the end, everything will be cleared up properly.
The problem is that if you have a long running program, chances are some of your IDiposable instances are locking some resources that shouldn't be locked. For cases like this, user code should use the using block or call Dispose() as soon as it is done with an object, but there's really no way for a anyone except the code author to know that.

You are not required to call the Dispose method. Implementing the IDisposable interface is a reminder that your class probably is using resources such as a database connection, a file handle, that need to be closed, so GC is not enough.
The best practice AFAIK is to call Dispose or even better, put the object in a using statement.

A good example is the .NET 2.0 Ping class, which runs asynchronously. Unless it throws an exception, you don't actually call Dispose until the callback method. Note that this example has some slightly weird casting due to the way Ping implements the IDisposable interface, but also inherits Dispose() (and only the former works as intended).
private void Refresh( Object sender, EventArgs args )
{
Ping ping = null;
try
{
ping = new Ping();
ping.PingCompleted += PingComplete;
ping.SendAsync( defaultHost, null );
}
catch ( Exception )
{
( (IDisposable)ping ).Dispose();
this.isAlive = false;
}
}
private void PingComplete( Object sender, PingCompletedEventArgs args )
{
this.isAlive = ( args.Error == null && args.Reply.Status == IPStatus.Success );
( (IDisposable)sender ).Dispose();
}

Can I ask how you're certain that it's specifically objects which implement IDisposable? In my experience the most-likely zombie objects are objects which have not properly had all their event handlers removed (thereby leaving a reference to them from another 'live' object and not qualifying them as unreachable during garbage collection).
There are tools which can help track these down by taking a snapshot of the managed heap and stacks and allowing you to see what objects are considered in-use at a given point in time. A freebie is windbg using sos.dll; it'll take some googling for tutorials to show you the commands you need--but it works and it's free. A more user-friendly (don't confused that with "simple") option is Red Gate's ANTS Profiler running in Memory Profiling mode--it's a slick tool.
Edit: Regarding the usefulness of calling Dispose--it provides a deterministic way to cleanup objects. Garbage Collection only runs when your app has ran out of its allocated memory--it's an expensive task which basically stops your application from executing and looks at all objects in existance and builds a tree of "reachable" (in-use) objects, then cleans up the unreachable objects. Manually cleaning up an object frees it before GC ever has to run.

Because the method creating the disposable object may be legitimately returning it as a value, that is, the compiler can't tell how the programming is intending to use it.

What if the disposable object is created in one class/module (say a factory) and is handed off to a different class/module to be used for a while before being disposed of? That use case should be OK, and the compiler shouldn't badger you about it. I suspect that's why there's no compile-time warning---the compiler assumes the Dispose call is in another file.

Determining when and where to call Dispose() is a very subjective thing, dependent on the nature of the program and how it uses disposable objects. Subjective problems are not something compilers are very good at. Instead, this is more a job for static analysis, which is the arena of tools like FxCop and StyleCop, or perhaps more advanced compilers like Spec#/Sing#. Static analysis uses rules to determine if subjective requirements, such as "Always ensure .Dispose() is called at some point.", are met.
I am honestly not sure if any static analyzers exist that are capable of checking whether .Dispose() is called. Even for static analysis as it exists today, that might be a bit on the too-subjective side of things. If you need a place to start looking, however, "Static Analysis for C#" is probably the best place.