We Keep Coding

IDisposable for convenience? [duplicate]

I was having a discussion with a colleague recently about the value of Dispose and types that implement IDisposable.
I think there is value in implementing IDisposable for types that should clean up as soon as possible, even if there are no unmanaged resources to clean up.
My colleague thinks differently; implementing IDisposable if you don't have any unmanaged resources isn't necessary as your type will eventually be garbage collected.
My argument was that if you had an ADO.NET connection that you wanted to close as soon as possible, then implementing IDisposable and using new MyThingWithAConnection() would make sense. My colleage replied that, under the covers, an ADO.NET connection is an unmanaged resource. My reply to his reply was that everything ultimately is an unmanaged resource.
I am aware of the recommended disposable pattern where you free managed and unmanaged resources if Dispose is called but only free unmanaged resources if called via the finalizer/destructor (and blogged a while ago about how to alert consumers of improper use of your IDisposable types)
So, my question is, if you've got a type that doesn't contain unmanaged resources, is it worth implementing IDisposable?

There are different valid uses for IDisposable. A simple example is holding an open file, which you need to be closed at certain moment, as soon as you don't need it any more. Of course, you could provide a method Close, but having it in Dispose and using pattern like using (var f = new MyFile(path)) { /*process it*/ } would be more exception-safe.
A more popular example would be holding some other IDisposable resources, which usually means that you need to provide your own Dispose in order to dispose them as well.
In general, as soon as you want to have deterministic destruction of anything, you need to implement IDisposable.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that I implement IDisposable as soon as some resource needs deterministic destruction/freeing, not necessary as soon as possible. Relying on garbage collection is not an option in this case (contrary to your colleague's claim), because it happens at unpredictable moment of time, and actually may not happen at all!
The fact that any resource is unmanaged under the cover really doesn't mean anything: the developer should think in terms of "when and how is it right to dispose of this object" rather than "how does it work under the cover". The underlying implementation may change with the time anyway.
In fact, one of the main differences between C# and C++ is the absence of default deterministic destruction. The IDisposable comes to close the gap: you can order the deterministic destruction (although you cannot ensure the clients are calling it; the same way in C++ you cannot be sure that the clients call delete on the object).
Small addition: what is actually the difference between the deterministic freeing the resources and freeing them as soon as possible? Actually, those are different (though not completely orthogonal) notions.
If the resources are to be freed deterministically, this means that the client code should have a possibility to say "Now, I want this resource freed". This may be actually not the earliest possible moment when the resource may be freed: the object holding the resource might have got everything it needs from the resource, so potentially it could free the resource already. On the other hand, the object might choose to keep the (usually unmanaged) resource even after the object's Dispose ran through, cleaning it up only in finalizer (if holding the resource for too long time doesn't make any problem).
So, for freeing the resource as soon as possible, strictly speaking, Dispose is not necessary: the object may free the resource as soon as it realizes itself that the resource is not needed any more. Dispose however serves as a useful hint that the object itself is not needed any more, so perhaps the resources may be freed at that point if appropriate.
One more necessary addition: it's not only unmanaged resources that need deterministic deallocation! This seems to be one of key points of the difference in opinions among the answers to this question. One can have purely imaginative construct, which may need to be freed deterministically.
Examples are: a right to access some shared structure (think RW-lock), a huge memory chunk (imagine that you are managing some of the program's memory manually), a license for using some other program (imagine that you are not allowed to run more than X copies of some program simultaneously), etc. Here the object to be freed is not an unmanaged resource, but a right to do/to use something, which is a purely inner construct to your program logic.
Small addition: here is a small list of neat examples of [ab]using IDisposable: http://www.introtorx.com/Content/v1.0.10621.0/03_LifetimeManagement.html#IDisposable.

I think it's most helpful to think of IDisposable in terms of responsibilities. An object should implement IDisposable if it knows of something that will need to be done between the time it's no longer needed and the end of the universe (and preferably as soon as possible), and if it's the only object with both the information and impetus to do it. An object which opens a file, for example, would have a responsibility to see that the file gets closed. If the object were to simply disappear without closing the file, the file might not get closed in any reasonable timeframe.
It's important to note that even objects which only interact with 100% managed objects can do things that need to be cleaned up (and should use IDisposable). For example, an IEnumerator which attaches to a collection's "modified" event will need to detach itself when it is no longer needed. Otherwise, unless the enumerator uses some complex trickery, the enumerator will never be garbage-collected as long as the collection is in scope. If the collection is enumerated a million times, a million enumerators would get attached to its event handler.
Note that it's sometimes possible to use finalizers for cleanup in cases where, for whatever reason, an object gets abandoned without Dispose having been called first. Sometimes this works well; sometimes it works very badly. For example, even though Microsoft.VisualBasic.Collection uses a finalizer to detach enumerators from "modified" events, attempting to enumerate such an object thousands of times without an intervening Dispose or garbage-collection will cause it to get very slow--many orders of magnitude slower than the performance that would result if one used Dispose correctly.

So, my question is, if you've got a type that doesn't contain
unmanaged resources, is it worth implementing IDisposable?
When someone places an IDisposable interface on an object, this tells me that the creator intends on this either doing something in that method or, in the future they may intend to. I always call dispose in this instance just to be sure. Even if it doesn't do anything right now, it might in the future, and it sucks to get a memory leak because they updated an object, and you didn't call Dispose when you were writing code the first time.
In truth it's a judgement call. You don't want to over implement it, because at that point why bother having a garbage collector at all. Why not just manually dispose every object. If there is a possibility that you'll need to dispose unmanaged resources, then it might not be a bad idea. It all depends, if the only people using your object are the people on your team, you can always follow up with them later and say, "Hey this needs to use an unmanaged resource now. We have to go through the code and make sure we've tidied up." If you are publishing this for other organizations to use that's different. There is no easy way to tell everyone who might have implemented that object, "Hey you need to be sure this is now disposed." Let me tell you there are few things that make people madder than upgrading a third party assembly to find out that they are the ones who changed their code and made your application have run away memory problems.
My colleage replied that, under the covers, an ADO.NET connection is a
managed resource. My reply to his reply was that everything ultimately
is an unmanaged resource.
He's right, it's a managed resource right now. Will they ever change it? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to call it. I don't try and make guesses as to what the ADO.NET team does, so if they put it in and it does nothing, that's fine. I'll still call it, because one line of code isn't going to affect my productivity.
You also run into another scenario. Let's say you return an ADO.NET connection from a method. You don't know that ADO connection is the base object or a derived type off the bat. You don't know if that IDisposable implementation has suddenly become necessary. I always call it no matter what, because tracking down memory leaks on a production server sucks when it's crashing every 4 hours.

While there are good answers to this already, I just wanted to make something explicit.
There are three cases for implementing IDisposable:
You are using unmanaged resources directly. This typically involves retrieving an IntPrt or some other form of handle from a P/Invoke call that has to be released by a different P/Invoke call
You are using other IDisposable objects and need to be responsible for their disposition
You have some other need of or use for it, including the convenience of the using block.
While I might be a bit biased, you should really read (and show your colleague) the StackOverflow Wiki on IDisposable.

Dispose should be used for any resource with a limited lifetime. A finalizer should be used for any unmanaged resource. Any unmanaged resource should have a limited lifetime, but there are plenty of managed resources (like locks) that also have limited lifetimes.

Note that unmanaged resources may well include standard CLR objects, for instance held in some static fields, all ran in safe mode with no unmanaged imports at all.
There is no simple way to tell if a given class implementing IDiposable actually needs to clean something. My rule of thumb is to always call Dispose on objects I don't know too well, like some 3rd party library.

No, it's not only for unmanaged resources.
It's suggested like a basic cleanup built-in mechanism called by framework, that enables you possibility to cleanup whatever resource you want, but it's best fit is naturally unmanaged resources management.

If you aggregate IDisposables then you should implement the interface in order that those members get cleaned up in a timely way. How else is myConn.Dispose() going to get called in the ADO.Net connection example you cite?
I don't think it's correct to say that everything is an unmanaged resource in this context though. Nor do I agree with your colleague.

You are right. Managed database connections, files, registry keys, sockets etc. all hold on to unmanaged objects. That is why they implement IDisposable. If your type owns disposable objects you should implement IDisposable and dispose them in your Dispose method. Otherwise they may stay alive until garbage collected resulting in locked files and other unexpected behavior.

everything ultimately is an unmanaged resource.
Not true. Everything except memory used by CLR objects which is managed (allocated and freed) only by the framework.
Implementing IDisposable and calling Dispose on an object that does not hold on to any unmanaged resources (directly or indirectly via dependent objects) is pointless. It does not make freeing that object deterministic because you can't directly free object's CLR memory on your own as it is always only GC that does that. Object being a reference type because value types, when used directly at a method level, are allocated/freed by stack operations.
Now, everyone claims to be right in their answers. Let me prove mine. According to documentation:
Object.Finalize Method allows an object to try to free resources and perform other cleanup operations before it is reclaimed by garbage collection.
In other words object's CLR memory is released just after Object.Finalize() is called. [note: it is possible to explicitly skip this call if needed]
Here is a disposable class with no unmanaged resources:
internal class Class1 : IDisposable
{
public Class1()
{
Console.WriteLine("Construct");
}
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Dispose");
}
~Class1()
{
Console.WriteLine("Destruct");
}
}
Note that destructor implicitly calls every Finalize in the inheritance chain down to Object.Finalize()
And here is the Main method of a console app:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Class1 obj = new Class1();
obj.Dispose();
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
If calling Dispose was a way to free a managed object in a deterministic way, every "Dispose" would be immediately followed by a "Destruct", right? See for yourself what happens. It is most interesting to run this app from a command line window.
Note: There is a way to force GC to collect all objects which are pending finalization in the current app domain but no for a single specific object. Nevertheless you do not need to call Dispose to have an object in the finalization queue. It is strongly discouraged to force collection as it will likely hurt overall application performance.
EDIT
There is one exception - state management. Dispose can handle state change if your object happens to manage an outside state. Even if state is not an unmanaged object it is very convenient to use it like one because of special treatment IDisposable has. Example would be a security context or impersonation context.
using (WindowsImpersonationContext context = SomeUserIdentity.Impersonate()))
{
// do something as SomeUser
}
// back to your user
It is not the best example because WindowsImpersonationContext uses system handle internally but you get the picture.
Bottom line is that when implementing IDisposable you need to have (or plan to have) something meaningful to do in the Dispose method. Otherwise it's just a waste of time. IDisposable does not change how your object is managed by GC.

Your Type should implement IDisposable if it references unmanaged resources or if it holds references to objects that implement IDisposable.

In one of my projects I had a class with managed threads inside it, we'll call them thread A, and thread B, and an IDisposable object, we'll call it C.
A used to dispose of C on exiting.
B used to use C to save exceptions.
My class had to implement IDisposable and a descrtuctor to ensure things are disposed of in the correct order.
Yes the GC could clean up my items, but my experience was there was a race condition unless I managed the clean up of my class.

Short Answer: Absolutely NOT. If your type has members that are managed or unmanaged, you should implement IDisposable.
Now details:
I've answered this question and provided much more detail on the internals of memory management and the GC on questions here on StackOverflow. Here are just a few:
Is it bad practice to depend on the .NET automated garbage collector?
What happens if I don't call Dispose on the pen object?
Dispose, when is it called?
As far as best practices on the implementation of IDisposable, please refer to my blog post:
How do you properly implement the IDisposable pattern?

Implement IDisposable if the object owns any unmanaged objects or any managed disposable objects
If an object uses unmanaged resources, it should implement IDisposable. The object that owns a disposable object should implement IDisposable to ensure that the underlying unmanaged resources are released. If the rule/convention is followed, it is therefore logical to conclude that not disposing managed disposable objects equals not freeing unmanaged resources.

Not necessary resources at all (either managed or unmanaged). Often, IDisposable is just a convenient way to elimnate combersome try {..} finally {..}, just compare:
Cursor savedCursor = Cursor.Current;
try {
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
SomeLongOperation();
}
finally {
Cursor.Current = savedCursor;
}
with
using (new WaitCursor()) {
SomeLongOperation();
}
where WaitCursor is IDisposable to be suitable for using:
public sealed class WaitCursor: IDisposable {
private Cursor m_Saved;
public Boolean Disposed {
get;
private set;
}
public WaitCursor() {
Cursor m_Saved = Cursor.Current;
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
}
public void Dispose() {
if (!Disposed) {
Disposed = true;
Cursor.Current = m_Saved;
}
}
}
You can easily combine such classes:
using (new WaitCursor()) {
using (new RegisterServerLongOperation("My Long DB Operation")) {
SomeLongRdbmsOperation();
}
SomeLongOperation();
}

are destructors necessary in C#?

I have a concern. I'm a first year student of computer science. Normally I'm very inquisitive in class but, not always my teacher has an answer, or not always knows the answer. Are destructors necessary in C#? What I mean is if I have to implement a destructor method as I normally do with constructors, is it a good practice or i can avoid it and the garbage collector will do it for me?

Destructors (or finalizers) are good to have in the language - but you should almost never use them. Basically you should only need them if you have a direct handle on an unmanaged resource, and not only is that incredibly rare, but using SafeHandle as a tiny level of indirection is a better idea anyway (which handles clean-up for you). See Joe Duffy's blog post on the topic for more details.
For what it's worth, I can't remember the last time I wrote a finalizer other than to test some odd behaviour or other.
For the vast majority of the time, life is simpler:
The garbage collector can handle memory resource cleanup
If you use an unmanaged resource (e.g. a file) locally within a method, use a using statement to make sure you release it when you're done with it
If you need a reference to an unmanaged resource (or anything else which implements IDisposable) as an instance variable within your type, your type should itself implement IDisposable. (I try to avoid this where possible. Even when it is necessary, you can make life simpler by making your class sealed, at which point you at least don't need to worry about other subclasses having even more unmanaged state to clean up.)

No destructors are not neccesary in C#. The reason why that's true is that in C# the memory is managed automatically and you haven't to do anything except from creating an object. When the garbage collector verifies that an object is not referred anywhere else in your application, then it reclaims its memory, without having you declared any destructor for this object, like we do on C++ for instance.

Nothing is unnecessary in any language. They serve their purpose.
Destructors will destruct the object and you'll end up with object resurrection.(If you try to access destructed object, you might get an error)
GC will automatically do this for you when the object has no longer any references to it. So there's is no need for you to do this explicitly..
Also, implementing IDisposable should be given preference over destructor.

Should "Dispose" only be used for types containing unmanaged resources?

I was having a discussion with a colleague recently about the value of Dispose and types that implement IDisposable.
I think there is value in implementing IDisposable for types that should clean up as soon as possible, even if there are no unmanaged resources to clean up.
My colleague thinks differently; implementing IDisposable if you don't have any unmanaged resources isn't necessary as your type will eventually be garbage collected.
My argument was that if you had an ADO.NET connection that you wanted to close as soon as possible, then implementing IDisposable and using new MyThingWithAConnection() would make sense. My colleage replied that, under the covers, an ADO.NET connection is an unmanaged resource. My reply to his reply was that everything ultimately is an unmanaged resource.
I am aware of the recommended disposable pattern where you free managed and unmanaged resources if Dispose is called but only free unmanaged resources if called via the finalizer/destructor (and blogged a while ago about how to alert consumers of improper use of your IDisposable types)
So, my question is, if you've got a type that doesn't contain unmanaged resources, is it worth implementing IDisposable?

There are different valid uses for IDisposable. A simple example is holding an open file, which you need to be closed at certain moment, as soon as you don't need it any more. Of course, you could provide a method Close, but having it in Dispose and using pattern like using (var f = new MyFile(path)) { /*process it*/ } would be more exception-safe.
A more popular example would be holding some other IDisposable resources, which usually means that you need to provide your own Dispose in order to dispose them as well.
In general, as soon as you want to have deterministic destruction of anything, you need to implement IDisposable.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that I implement IDisposable as soon as some resource needs deterministic destruction/freeing, not necessary as soon as possible. Relying on garbage collection is not an option in this case (contrary to your colleague's claim), because it happens at unpredictable moment of time, and actually may not happen at all!
The fact that any resource is unmanaged under the cover really doesn't mean anything: the developer should think in terms of "when and how is it right to dispose of this object" rather than "how does it work under the cover". The underlying implementation may change with the time anyway.
In fact, one of the main differences between C# and C++ is the absence of default deterministic destruction. The IDisposable comes to close the gap: you can order the deterministic destruction (although you cannot ensure the clients are calling it; the same way in C++ you cannot be sure that the clients call delete on the object).
Small addition: what is actually the difference between the deterministic freeing the resources and freeing them as soon as possible? Actually, those are different (though not completely orthogonal) notions.
If the resources are to be freed deterministically, this means that the client code should have a possibility to say "Now, I want this resource freed". This may be actually not the earliest possible moment when the resource may be freed: the object holding the resource might have got everything it needs from the resource, so potentially it could free the resource already. On the other hand, the object might choose to keep the (usually unmanaged) resource even after the object's Dispose ran through, cleaning it up only in finalizer (if holding the resource for too long time doesn't make any problem).
So, for freeing the resource as soon as possible, strictly speaking, Dispose is not necessary: the object may free the resource as soon as it realizes itself that the resource is not needed any more. Dispose however serves as a useful hint that the object itself is not needed any more, so perhaps the resources may be freed at that point if appropriate.
One more necessary addition: it's not only unmanaged resources that need deterministic deallocation! This seems to be one of key points of the difference in opinions among the answers to this question. One can have purely imaginative construct, which may need to be freed deterministically.
Examples are: a right to access some shared structure (think RW-lock), a huge memory chunk (imagine that you are managing some of the program's memory manually), a license for using some other program (imagine that you are not allowed to run more than X copies of some program simultaneously), etc. Here the object to be freed is not an unmanaged resource, but a right to do/to use something, which is a purely inner construct to your program logic.
Small addition: here is a small list of neat examples of [ab]using IDisposable: http://www.introtorx.com/Content/v1.0.10621.0/03_LifetimeManagement.html#IDisposable.

I think it's most helpful to think of IDisposable in terms of responsibilities. An object should implement IDisposable if it knows of something that will need to be done between the time it's no longer needed and the end of the universe (and preferably as soon as possible), and if it's the only object with both the information and impetus to do it. An object which opens a file, for example, would have a responsibility to see that the file gets closed. If the object were to simply disappear without closing the file, the file might not get closed in any reasonable timeframe.
It's important to note that even objects which only interact with 100% managed objects can do things that need to be cleaned up (and should use IDisposable). For example, an IEnumerator which attaches to a collection's "modified" event will need to detach itself when it is no longer needed. Otherwise, unless the enumerator uses some complex trickery, the enumerator will never be garbage-collected as long as the collection is in scope. If the collection is enumerated a million times, a million enumerators would get attached to its event handler.
Note that it's sometimes possible to use finalizers for cleanup in cases where, for whatever reason, an object gets abandoned without Dispose having been called first. Sometimes this works well; sometimes it works very badly. For example, even though Microsoft.VisualBasic.Collection uses a finalizer to detach enumerators from "modified" events, attempting to enumerate such an object thousands of times without an intervening Dispose or garbage-collection will cause it to get very slow--many orders of magnitude slower than the performance that would result if one used Dispose correctly.

So, my question is, if you've got a type that doesn't contain
unmanaged resources, is it worth implementing IDisposable?
When someone places an IDisposable interface on an object, this tells me that the creator intends on this either doing something in that method or, in the future they may intend to. I always call dispose in this instance just to be sure. Even if it doesn't do anything right now, it might in the future, and it sucks to get a memory leak because they updated an object, and you didn't call Dispose when you were writing code the first time.
In truth it's a judgement call. You don't want to over implement it, because at that point why bother having a garbage collector at all. Why not just manually dispose every object. If there is a possibility that you'll need to dispose unmanaged resources, then it might not be a bad idea. It all depends, if the only people using your object are the people on your team, you can always follow up with them later and say, "Hey this needs to use an unmanaged resource now. We have to go through the code and make sure we've tidied up." If you are publishing this for other organizations to use that's different. There is no easy way to tell everyone who might have implemented that object, "Hey you need to be sure this is now disposed." Let me tell you there are few things that make people madder than upgrading a third party assembly to find out that they are the ones who changed their code and made your application have run away memory problems.
My colleage replied that, under the covers, an ADO.NET connection is a
managed resource. My reply to his reply was that everything ultimately
is an unmanaged resource.
He's right, it's a managed resource right now. Will they ever change it? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to call it. I don't try and make guesses as to what the ADO.NET team does, so if they put it in and it does nothing, that's fine. I'll still call it, because one line of code isn't going to affect my productivity.
You also run into another scenario. Let's say you return an ADO.NET connection from a method. You don't know that ADO connection is the base object or a derived type off the bat. You don't know if that IDisposable implementation has suddenly become necessary. I always call it no matter what, because tracking down memory leaks on a production server sucks when it's crashing every 4 hours.

While there are good answers to this already, I just wanted to make something explicit.
There are three cases for implementing IDisposable:
You are using unmanaged resources directly. This typically involves retrieving an IntPrt or some other form of handle from a P/Invoke call that has to be released by a different P/Invoke call
You are using other IDisposable objects and need to be responsible for their disposition
You have some other need of or use for it, including the convenience of the using block.
While I might be a bit biased, you should really read (and show your colleague) the StackOverflow Wiki on IDisposable.

Dispose should be used for any resource with a limited lifetime. A finalizer should be used for any unmanaged resource. Any unmanaged resource should have a limited lifetime, but there are plenty of managed resources (like locks) that also have limited lifetimes.

Note that unmanaged resources may well include standard CLR objects, for instance held in some static fields, all ran in safe mode with no unmanaged imports at all.
There is no simple way to tell if a given class implementing IDiposable actually needs to clean something. My rule of thumb is to always call Dispose on objects I don't know too well, like some 3rd party library.

No, it's not only for unmanaged resources.
It's suggested like a basic cleanup built-in mechanism called by framework, that enables you possibility to cleanup whatever resource you want, but it's best fit is naturally unmanaged resources management.

If you aggregate IDisposables then you should implement the interface in order that those members get cleaned up in a timely way. How else is myConn.Dispose() going to get called in the ADO.Net connection example you cite?
I don't think it's correct to say that everything is an unmanaged resource in this context though. Nor do I agree with your colleague.

You are right. Managed database connections, files, registry keys, sockets etc. all hold on to unmanaged objects. That is why they implement IDisposable. If your type owns disposable objects you should implement IDisposable and dispose them in your Dispose method. Otherwise they may stay alive until garbage collected resulting in locked files and other unexpected behavior.

everything ultimately is an unmanaged resource.
Not true. Everything except memory used by CLR objects which is managed (allocated and freed) only by the framework.
Implementing IDisposable and calling Dispose on an object that does not hold on to any unmanaged resources (directly or indirectly via dependent objects) is pointless. It does not make freeing that object deterministic because you can't directly free object's CLR memory on your own as it is always only GC that does that. Object being a reference type because value types, when used directly at a method level, are allocated/freed by stack operations.
Now, everyone claims to be right in their answers. Let me prove mine. According to documentation:
Object.Finalize Method allows an object to try to free resources and perform other cleanup operations before it is reclaimed by garbage collection.
In other words object's CLR memory is released just after Object.Finalize() is called. [note: it is possible to explicitly skip this call if needed]
Here is a disposable class with no unmanaged resources:
internal class Class1 : IDisposable
{
public Class1()
{
Console.WriteLine("Construct");
}
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Dispose");
}
~Class1()
{
Console.WriteLine("Destruct");
}
}
Note that destructor implicitly calls every Finalize in the inheritance chain down to Object.Finalize()
And here is the Main method of a console app:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Class1 obj = new Class1();
obj.Dispose();
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
If calling Dispose was a way to free a managed object in a deterministic way, every "Dispose" would be immediately followed by a "Destruct", right? See for yourself what happens. It is most interesting to run this app from a command line window.
Note: There is a way to force GC to collect all objects which are pending finalization in the current app domain but no for a single specific object. Nevertheless you do not need to call Dispose to have an object in the finalization queue. It is strongly discouraged to force collection as it will likely hurt overall application performance.
EDIT
There is one exception - state management. Dispose can handle state change if your object happens to manage an outside state. Even if state is not an unmanaged object it is very convenient to use it like one because of special treatment IDisposable has. Example would be a security context or impersonation context.
using (WindowsImpersonationContext context = SomeUserIdentity.Impersonate()))
{
// do something as SomeUser
}
// back to your user
It is not the best example because WindowsImpersonationContext uses system handle internally but you get the picture.
Bottom line is that when implementing IDisposable you need to have (or plan to have) something meaningful to do in the Dispose method. Otherwise it's just a waste of time. IDisposable does not change how your object is managed by GC.

Your Type should implement IDisposable if it references unmanaged resources or if it holds references to objects that implement IDisposable.

In one of my projects I had a class with managed threads inside it, we'll call them thread A, and thread B, and an IDisposable object, we'll call it C.
A used to dispose of C on exiting.
B used to use C to save exceptions.
My class had to implement IDisposable and a descrtuctor to ensure things are disposed of in the correct order.
Yes the GC could clean up my items, but my experience was there was a race condition unless I managed the clean up of my class.

Short Answer: Absolutely NOT. If your type has members that are managed or unmanaged, you should implement IDisposable.
Now details:
I've answered this question and provided much more detail on the internals of memory management and the GC on questions here on StackOverflow. Here are just a few:
Is it bad practice to depend on the .NET automated garbage collector?
What happens if I don't call Dispose on the pen object?
Dispose, when is it called?
As far as best practices on the implementation of IDisposable, please refer to my blog post:
How do you properly implement the IDisposable pattern?

Implement IDisposable if the object owns any unmanaged objects or any managed disposable objects
If an object uses unmanaged resources, it should implement IDisposable. The object that owns a disposable object should implement IDisposable to ensure that the underlying unmanaged resources are released. If the rule/convention is followed, it is therefore logical to conclude that not disposing managed disposable objects equals not freeing unmanaged resources.

Not necessary resources at all (either managed or unmanaged). Often, IDisposable is just a convenient way to elimnate combersome try {..} finally {..}, just compare:
Cursor savedCursor = Cursor.Current;
try {
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
SomeLongOperation();
}
finally {
Cursor.Current = savedCursor;
}
with
using (new WaitCursor()) {
SomeLongOperation();
}
where WaitCursor is IDisposable to be suitable for using:
public sealed class WaitCursor: IDisposable {
private Cursor m_Saved;
public Boolean Disposed {
get;
private set;
}
public WaitCursor() {
Cursor m_Saved = Cursor.Current;
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
}
public void Dispose() {
if (!Disposed) {
Disposed = true;
Cursor.Current = m_Saved;
}
}
}
You can easily combine such classes:
using (new WaitCursor()) {
using (new RegisterServerLongOperation("My Long DB Operation")) {
SomeLongRdbmsOperation();
}
SomeLongOperation();
}

The primary use of IDisposable interface [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Proper use of the IDisposable interface
"IDisposable Interface" article tells:
The primary use of this interface is to release unmanaged resources
Why? Why only unmanaged?
Whole my life I thought its PRIMIRALY use is to release ANY resources: managed (connections to DBs, services proxies, etc) and unmanaged (if they are used in application).
P.S.
I believe there are already questions on this topic, but can't find them.

The underlying connections to db's are not managed, as are file handles and a number of other low-level o/s objects. They are unmanaged. Implementing an IDisposable interface implies that you are not just relying on the garbage collector to release those resources; but you are closing those resources using what ever low-level API that you have available.
Also, I think Eric Lippert's answer (2nd one down) to a similar question is a very good explanation on why you would use IDisposable.

If you read further there is an explanation:
The garbage collector automatically
releases the memory allocated to a
managed object when that object is no
longer used. However, it is not
possible to predict when garbage
collection will occur. Furthermore,
the garbage collector has no knowledge
of unmanaged resources such as window
handles, or open files and streams.
Garbage collector takes care about managed resources. This is why they are managed.
Also, connection resource in your example is not managed resource. .NET connection classes wrap unmanaged resources.

IDisposable.Dispose() is responsible for two things:
Releasing unmanaged resources that the object might own
Dispose()ing other IDisposables owned by the object

Your answer to
Why? Why only unmanaged?
Lifetime of the managed resources are controlled by garbage collector. Which is one of the nice reason that you use C# or Java.

Instead of "unmanaged resources", think "responsibilities". When an object is described as holding "unamanged resources", what that really means is that:
The class has the information and impetus necessary to do something to an outside entity.
If that action never gets done, something else won't work as well as it otherwise would (the effects may be minor or severe).
If the class is doesn't perform the action, nothing else will.
The most common situation where a class will have cleanup responsibilities is when some other entity has been asked to reserve something (be it a file, GDI handle, lock, array slot, memory block, communications channel, or whatever) until further notice. If nothing tells that other entity that the thing it's reserved is no longer needed, it will never allow anything else to use it.
If an object which has an important responsibility to perform some action gets swept away by the garbage collector before fulfilling its responsibility, the action will never get performed. There are two ways this can be prevented:
If an object implements IDisposable, "someone" (either another object or a running procedure) should be slated to call Dispose method before it's abandoned. Dispose shouldn't be thought of as destroying an object, but rather telling an object to carry out its final responsibilities so it may be safely abandoned.
Objects can ask the system to let them know when they've been abandoned, before they're swept away. While such notifications can reduce the danger that a required action might never be performed, it is dangerous to rely upon them since they will often not come in a particularly timely fashion, and in some cases may never come at all.
Objects which provide for the second cleanup approach are called "managed resources".

pattern to release objects in a managed language

In a complex application (involving inversion of control and quite some classes) it is hardly possible to know when a certain object won't be referenced anylonger.
First Question: Suggests the statement above that there is a design flaw in such an application, since there is a pattern saying: "In all OO programming it is about objects using other types of objects to ease up implementation. However: For any object created there should be some owner that will take care of its lifetime."
I assume it is save to state that traditional unmanaged OO programming works like stated above: Some owner will eventually free / release the used object.
However the benefit of a managed language is that in principle you don't have to care about lifetime management anymore. As long an object is referenced anyhow (event-handler...) and from anywhere (maybe not the "owner") it lives and should live, since it is still in use.
I really like that idea and that you don't have to think in terms of owner relationships. However at some point in a program it might get obvious that you want to get rid of an object (or at least mute it in a way as it wouldn't be there).
IStoppable: a suggestion of a design pattern
There could be an interface like "IStoppable", with a "Stop()" method and an "Stopped" event, so that any other object using it can remove their references onto the object. (Therefore would need to unplug their OnStopped event handler within the event handler if that is possible). As a result the object is no longer needed and will get collected.
Maybe it is naive but what i like to believe about that idea is that there wouldn't be an undefined state of the object. Even if some other object missed to unregister itself on OnStopped it will just stay alive and can still get called. Nothing got broken just by removing most references onto it.
I think this pattern can be viewed as an anarchistic app design, since
it is based on the idea that ANY other object can manage the lifetime of an IStoppable
there is no need for an owner
it would be considered as OK to leave the decision of unregistering from an IStoppable to those using it
you don't need to dispose, destroy or throw away - you just stop and let live (let GC do the dirty part)
IDisposable: from scatch and just to check a related pattern:
The disposable pattern suggests that you should still think and work like in unmanaged OO programming: Dispose an object that you don't need anylonger.
using is your friend in a method (very comfortable!)
an own IDisposable implementation is your friend otherwise.
after using it / calling Dispose you shouldn't call it anylonger: undefined behaviour.
implementation and resource centric: it is not so much about when and why, but more about the details of reclaiming resources
So again: In an application where i don't have in mind if anything else but an "owner" is pointing to an object, it is hard to ensure that noone will reference and call it anylonger.
I read of a "Dispose" event in the Component class of .NET. Is there a design pattern around it?
Why would i want to think in terms of Disposables? Why should i?
In a managed world...
Thanks!
Sebastian

I personally don't like the idea of IStoppable, as defined above. You're saying you want any object to manage the lifetime of the object - however, a defined lifecycle really suggests ownership - allowing multiple objects to manage the lifetime of a single object is going to cause issues in the long
IDisposable is, however, a well defined pattern in the .NET world. I wrote an entire series on implementing IDisposable which is a decent introduction to it's usage. However, it's purpose is for handling resource which have an unmanaged component - when you have a managed object that refers to a native resource, it's often desirable to have explicit control of the lifetime of that resource. IDisposable is a defined pattern for handling that situation.
That being said, a proper implementation of IDisposable will still clean up your resources if you fail to call Dispose(). The downside is that the resource will be cleaned up during the object's finalization, which could occur at any arbitrary point after the object is no longer used. This can be very bad for quite a few reasons - especially if you're using native resources that are limited in nature. By not disposing of the resource immediately, you can run out of resources before the GC runs on the object, especially if there isn't a lot of memory pressure in the system.

Ok first I would point out a few things I find uncomfortable about your IStoppable suggestion.
IStoppable raises event Stopped, consumers must know about this and release references. This is a bit complex at best, problematic at worst. Consumers must know where every reference is in order to remove/reset the reference.
You claim "... Nothing got broken just by removing most references onto it.". That entirely depends on the object implementing IStoppable and it's uses. Say, for example, my IStoppable object is an object cache. Now I forget about or ignore the event and suddenly I'm using a different object cache as the rest of the world... maybe that is ok, maybe not.
Events are a horrible way to provide behavior like this due to the fact that exceptions prove difficult to handle. What does it mean when the third out 10 event handlers throws an exception in the IStoppable.Stopped event?
I think what your trying to express is an object that may be 'owned' by many things and can be forcefully released by one? In this case you might consider using a reference counter pattern, more like old-school COM. That of course has issues as well, but they are less of a problem in a managed world.
The issue with a reference counter around an object is that you come back to the idea of an invalid/uninitialized object. One possible way to solve this is to provide the reference counter with a valid 'default' instance (or a factory delegate) to use when all references have been release and someone still wants an instance.

I think you have a misunderstanding of modern OO languages; in particular scope and garbage collection.
The lifetime of the objects are very much controlled by their scope. Whether the scope is limited to a using clause, a method, or even the appdomain.
Although you don't necessarily "care" about the lifetime of the object, the compiler does and will set it aside for garbage collection as soon as it goes out of scope.
You can speed up that process by purposely telling the garbage collector to run now, but that's usually a pointless exercise as the compiler will optimize the code to do so at the most opportune time anyway.
If you are talking about objects in multi-threaded applications, these already expose mechanisms to stop their execution or otherwise kill them on demand.
Which leaves us with unmanaged resources. For those, the wrapper should implement IDisposable. I'll skip talking about it as Reed Copsey has already covered that ground nicely.

While there are times a Disposed event (like the one used by Windows Forms) can be useful, events do add a fair bit of overhead. In cases where an object will keep all the IDisposables it ever owns until it's disposed (a common situation) it may be better to keep a List(Of IDisposable) and have a private function "T RegDisp<T>(T obj) where T:IDisposable" which will add an object to the disposables list and return it. Instead of setting a field to SomeDisposable, set it to RegDisp(SomeDisposable). Note that in VB, provided all constructor calls are wrapped in factory methods, it's possible to safely use RegDisp() within field initializers, but that cannot be done in C#.
Incidentally, if an IDisposable's constructor accepts an IDisposable as a parameter, it may often be helpful to have it accept a Boolean indicating whether or not ownership of that object will be transferred. If a possibly-owned IDisposable will be exposed in a mutable property (e.g. PictureBox.Image) the property itself should be read-only, with a setter method that accepts an ownership flag. Calling the set method when the object owns the old object should Dispose the old object before setting the new one. Using that approach will eliminate much of the need for a Disposed event.