We Keep Coding

Should factory keep track of created IDisposable objects?

Consider the following simple factory example:
public class MyFactory : IMyFactory
{
public MyObject CreateObject()
{
return new MyObject();
}
}
In this example, MyObject implements the IDisposable interface. Typically I would expect the consuming program to use this as follows:
// Use using to properly dispose of MyObject
using (MyObject obj = myFactory.CreateObject())
{
// ...
}
Is it common practice to expect the developer consuming the Factory to handle disposal like this? Or should the Factory keep a list of objects it has created and make sure they are cleaned up periodically, or, possibly when the factory is disposed?

A type implementing IDisposable provides a way for the consumer of the type to deterministically clean up any unmanaged resources used by the type. E.g., when a FileStream is disposed the underlying OS file handle is closed.
Any properly implemented type that directly uses an unmanaged resource (e.g file handle, database connection, native socket etc.) will also have a finalizer to release the unmanaged resource when the object is garbage collected. It is up to the consumer of the type to either use IDisposable to deterministically release the unmanaged resource or simply wait for the garbage collector to do it. In most cases you want to go the deterministic route. E.g., you do not want to wait for the garbage collector before a file becomes accessible from other processes. You want to close the file as soon as you are done working with that file.
So the garbage collector in combination with finalizers will perform the task that you try to delegate to your factory and because your factory is not the garbage collector you will probably have a very hard time to actually implement this "tracking and automatic clean up".
So my primary answer to your question is, no, the factory should not keep track of created IDisposable objects.
However, if your factory is some sort of container that controls the lifetime of the created objects you can make the factory itself IDisposable and then dispose all created objects on disposal. This is a common pattern in dependency injection containers that are used in response-request cycles like in web applications. The container is created at the start of the request and disposed when the response is complete. The consumers of the types created by the factory are oblivious to the fact the some of the types have to be disposed when the request ends.

"It depends"
When a factory creates IDisposable objects, it often makes sense for the client to dispose of them.
But a common factory pattern is to produce objects which are built using other disposables, but are not themselves disposable. Why would you do that? Because of the viral nature of IDisposable:
If you have a type that is composed out of 5 other inner types, and only the "inner most" is an IDisposable you have a choice:
you can implement the IDisposable pattern on all 5 types so that when you dispose of the "outer most" instance, the one genuine disposable get disposed correctly.
This obviously requires a fair bit of cruft and affects the design of every type in your composition.
or, you can inject the one genuine disposable into your object composition from the factory, and let the factory manage the lifetime of the disposable. In this way the factory starts to fill more of a lifetime management role.
You do see examples of both approach in the real world, but I personally do not like implementing IDisposable just for viral reasons (i.e. my type is creating an IDisposable so must be IDisposable itself - as per .NET Framework Design Guidelines).
WCF's ChannelFactory keeps a list of all the channels it has created and closes them when you Dispose the factory. Similarly many IoC containers (which are themselves essentially super-factories) support a lifetime management role via things like StructureMap's GetNestedContainer() or Autofac's BeginLifetimeScope()

When you implement IDisposable you have to implement yourself the cleaning method for every class. In other words GC won't clean it for you properly leading to a memory leak.
Personally I recommend that every object who implements IDisposable should know how to clean itself.
If your factory creates and returns only instances without keeping list of each one, then each class which administrates external resources or unmanaged resources should implement IDisposable.

Absolutely NOT. Even in real world example, No real factory keep track of its products being trashed after their useful life.
Interesting, I was not assuming some technical discussions to a very simple question. In order to understand we have understand the analogy of the terms:
FACTORY:
A term used to point to the object that is responsible for creating instances of types it can handle.
LIFE TIME MANAGER:
A term used to point to the object that is responsible for the life time of the created instances. It usually work with more than one related instances, such as in the case of Dependency Resolver where it can dispose the dependency object as soon as the dependent object goes out of the scope.
Therefore, it would be better not to tie up so many things within a single class unnecessarily.
I would appreciate the experts opinion on this.

If a factory does not trust that code using the objects it creates will reliably call Dispose upon them, it may be necessary to have the factory keep a link of weak references to such objects along with the information necessary to clean them up. That's an ugly pattern, but in some cases it may be better than any workable alternative if it's important to ensure that abandoned objects get cleaned up. While there are times when it's better to have the produced objects clean themselves up using destructors or Finalize, there are others when it's better to have the factory in charge of such cleanup. For example, if a factory's products subscribe to logical events from the factory, normal event subscriptions would keep those objects from ever getting finalized during the lifetime of the factory. If instead the factory keeps a list of WeakReference to such objects, each notification can cause all live objects to have their notification method invoked, and all dead objects to have their WeakReference removed from the list.

Disposing MemoryCache in Finalizer throws AccessViolationException

EDIT
See edit note at the bottom of the question for additional detail.
Original question
I have a CacheWrapper class which creates and holds onto an instance of the .NET MemoryCache class internally.
MemoryCache hooks itself into AppDomain events, so it will never be garbage-collected unless it is explicitly disposed. You can verify this with the following code:
Func<bool, WeakReference> create = disposed => {
var cache = new MemoryCache("my cache");
if (disposed) { cache.Dispose(); }
return new WeakReference(cache);
};
// with false, we loop forever. With true, we exit
var weakCache = create(false);
while (weakCache.IsAlive)
{
"Still waiting...".Dump();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
}
"Cleaned up!".Dump();
Because of the behavior, I believe that my MemoryCache instance should be treated as an unmanaged resource. In other words, I should ensure that it is disposed in the finalizer of CacheWrapper (CacheWrapper is itself Disposable follows the standard Dispose(bool) pattern).
However, I am finding that this causes issues when my code runs as part of an ASP.NET app. When the application domain is unloaded, the finalizer runs on my CacheWrapper class. This in turn attempts to dispose the MemoryCache instance. This is where I run into issues. It seems that Dispose attempts to load some configuration information from IIS, which fails (presumably because I'm in the midst of unloading the app domain, but I'm not sure. Here's the stack dump I have:
MANAGED_STACK:
SP IP Function
000000298835E6D0 0000000000000001 System_Web!System.Web.Hosting.UnsafeIISMethods.MgdGetSiteNameFromId(IntPtr, UInt32, IntPtr ByRef, Int32 ByRef)+0x2
000000298835E7B0 000007F7C56C7F2F System_Web!System.Web.Configuration.ProcessHostConfigUtils.GetSiteNameFromId(UInt32)+0x7f
000000298835E810 000007F7C56DCB68 System_Web!System.Web.Configuration.ProcessHostMapPath.MapPathCaching(System.String, System.Web.VirtualPath)+0x2a8
000000298835E8C0 000007F7C5B9FD52 System_Web!System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironment.MapPathActual(System.Web.VirtualPath, Boolean)+0x142
000000298835E940 000007F7C5B9FABB System_Web!System.Web.CachedPathData.GetPhysicalPath(System.Web.VirtualPath)+0x2b
000000298835E9A0 000007F7C5B99E9E System_Web!System.Web.CachedPathData.GetConfigPathData(System.String)+0x2ce
000000298835EB00 000007F7C5B99E19 System_Web!System.Web.CachedPathData.GetConfigPathData(System.String)+0x249
000000298835EC60 000007F7C5BB008D System_Web!System.Web.Configuration.HttpConfigurationSystem.GetApplicationSection(System.String)+0x1d
000000298835EC90 000007F7C5BAFDD6 System_Configuration!System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.GetSection(System.String)+0x56
000000298835ECC0 000007F7C63A11AE System_Runtime_Caching!Unknown+0x3e
000000298835ED20 000007F7C63A1115 System_Runtime_Caching!Unknown+0x75
000000298835ED60 000007F7C639C3C5 System_Runtime_Caching!Unknown+0xe5
000000298835EDD0 000007F7C7628D86 System_Runtime_Caching!Unknown+0x86
// my code here
Is there any known solution to this? Am I correct in thinking that I do need to dispose the MemoryCache in the finalizer?
EDIT
This article validates Dan Bryant's answer and discusses many of the interesting details. In particular, he covers the case of StreamWriter, which faces a similar scenario to mine because it wants to flush it's buffers upon disposal. Here's what the article says:
Generally speaking, finalizers may not access managed objects.
However, support for shutdown logic is necessary for
reasonably-complex software. The Windows.Forms namespace handles this
with Application.Exit, which initiates an orderly shutdown. When
designing library components, it is helpful to have a way of
supporting shutdown logic integrated with the existing
logically-similar IDisposable (this avoids having to define an
IShutdownable interface without any built-in language support). This
is usually done by supporting orderly shutdown when
IDisposable.Dispose is invoked, and an abortive shutdown when it is
not. It would be even better if the finalizer could be used to do an
orderly shutdown whenever possible.
Microsoft came up against this problem, too. The StreamWriter class
owns a Stream object; StreamWriter.Close will flush its buffers and
then call Stream.Close. However, if a StreamWriter was not closed, its
finalizer cannot flush its buffers. Microsoft "solved" this problem by
not giving StreamWriter a finalizer, hoping that programmers will
notice the missing data and deduce their error. This is a perfect
example of the need for shutdown logic.
All that said, I think that it should be possible to implement "managed finalization" using WeakReference. Basically, have your class register a WeakReference to itself and a finalize action with some queue when the object is created. The queue is then monitored by a background thread or timer which calls the appropriate action when it's paired WeakReference gets collected. Of course, you'd have to be careful that your finalize action doesn't inadvertantly hold onto the class itself, thus preventing collection altogether!

You can't Dispose managed objects in the finalizer, as they might have already been finalized (or, as you've seen here, portions of the environment may no longer be in the state you're expecting.) This means that if you contain a class which must be Disposed explicitly, your class must also be Disposed explicitly. There's no way to 'cheat' and make the Disposal automatic. Unfortunately, garbage collection is, in cases like this, a leaky abstraction.

I would suggest that objects with finalizers should generally not be exposed to the outside world, and should only hold strong references to things which are actually needed for finalization and are not exposed to anything in the outside world that is not expecting them to be used for that purpose. Public-facing types should not have finalizers themselves, but should instead encapsulate cleanup logic within privately-held instances of finalizable classes whose purpose is to encapsulate such logic.
The only time it really makes sense for a finalizer to attempt to clean up a resource which is owned by another object is when the other object is designed to interface with the finalizer. I can't think of any places where Framework classes have engineered in the proper hooks, but will offer an example how Microsoft could have engineered them to do so.
A File object could offer an event with thread-safe subscribe and unsubscribe methods which would fire (notifying the last subscriber first) when the File object receives either a Dispose call or a finalize request. The event would fire between the time Finalize is called and the time the encapsulated file is actually closed, and could be used by a an external buffering class as a signal that it needs to give the File any information which it has received but not yet passed along.
Note that to make such a thing work properly and safely, it would be necessary that the part of the File object which has the finalizer not be exposed to the public, and that it use a long weak reference to ensure that if it runs while the public-facing object is still alive, it will reregister itself for finalization. Note that if the only reference to a WeakReference object is stored in a finalizable object, its Target property may be invalidated if the finalizable object becomes eligible for finalization even if the actual target of the reference is still alive. Defective design, IMHO, and one which must be worked around somewhat carefully.
It's possible to design objects with finalizers that can cooperate (the easiest way to do it, generally, is to only have one object in the group sport a finalizer), but if things aren't designed to cooperate with finalizers, the best that one can do is generally have a finalizer sound an alarm indicating "This object wasn't supposed to be Disposed but wasn't; because it wasn't, resources are going to leak, and there's nothing to be done about it except fix the code to dispose the object properly in future".

When should I create a destructor?

For example:
public class Person
{
public Person()
{
}
~Person()
{
}
}
When should I manually create a destructor?
When have you needed to create a destructor?

UPDATE: This question was the subject of my blog in May of 2015. Thanks for the great question! See the blog for a long list of falsehoods that people commonly believe about finalization.
When should I manually create a destructor?
Almost never.
Typically one only creates a destructor when your class is holding on to some expensive unmanaged resource that must be cleaned up when the object goes away. It is better to use the disposable pattern to ensure that the resource is cleaned up. A destructor is then essentially an assurance that if the consumer of your object forgets to dispose it, the resource still gets cleaned up eventually. (Maybe.)
If you make a destructor be extremely careful and understand how the garbage collector works. Destructors are really weird:
They don't run on your thread; they run on their own thread. Don't cause deadlocks!
An unhandled exception thrown from a destructor is bad news. It's on its own thread; who is going to catch it?
A destructor may be called on an object after the constructor starts but before the constructor finishes. A properly written destructor will not rely on invariants established in the constructor.
A destructor can "resurrect" an object, making a dead object alive again. That's really weird. Don't do it.
A destructor might never run; you can't rely on the object ever being scheduled for finalization. It probably will be, but that's not a guarantee.
Almost nothing that is normally true is true in a destructor. Be really, really careful. Writing a correct destructor is very difficult.
When have you needed to create a destructor?
When testing the part of the compiler that handles destructors. I've never needed to do so in production code. I seldom write objects that manipulate unmanaged resources.

It's called a "finalizer", and you should usually only create one for a class whose state (i.e.: fields) include unmanaged resources (i.e.: pointers to handles retrieved via p/invoke calls). However, in .NET 2.0 and later, there's actually a better way to deal with clean-up of unmanaged resources: SafeHandle. Given this, you should pretty much never need to write a finalizer again.

You don't need one unless your class maintains unmanaged resources like Windows file handles.

It's called a destructor/finalizer, and is usually created when implementing the Disposed pattern.
It's a fallback solution when the user of your class forgets to call Dispose, to make sure that (eventually) your resources gets released, but you do not have any guarantee as to when the destructor is called.
In this Stack Overflow question, the accepted answer correctly shows how to implement the dispose pattern. This is only needed if your class contain any unhandeled resources that the garbage collector does not manage to clean up itself.
A good practice is to not implement a finalizer without also giving the user of the class the possibility to manually Disposing the object to free the resources right away.

I have used a destructor (for debug purposes only) to see if an object was being purged from memory in the scope of a WPF application. I was unsure if garbage collection was truly purging the object from memory, and this was a good way to verify.

When you have unmanaged resources and you need to make sure they will be cleaned up when your object goes away. Good example would be COM objects or File Handlers.

Destructors provide an implicit way of freeing unmanaged resources encapsulated in your class, they get called when the GC gets around to it and they implicitly call the Finalize method of the base class. If you're using a lot of unmanaged resources it is better to provide an explicit way of freeing those resources via the IDisposable interface. See the C# programming guide: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/66x5fx1b.aspx

Answer:
When you have to release unmanaged resources, like file handles, database connections, etc.
// Example
public class Person
{
private FileStream _fileStream;
public Person()
{
_fileStream = new FileStream("test.txt", FileMode.Open);
}
~Person()
{
_fileStream.Close();
}
}
Explanation:
The destructor is called when the object is garbage collected. It is not called when the object is destroyed by the programmer. It is called when the object is no longer referenced by any other object. It is called when the object is no longer in scope. It is called when the object is no longer in memory.

Dispose a Web Service Proxy class?

When you create and use a Web Service proxy class in the ASP.Net framework, the class ultimately inherits from Component, which implements IDisposable.
I have never seen one example online where people dispose of a web proxy class, but was wondering if it really needs to be done. When I call only one method, I normally wrap it in a using statement, but if I have a need to call it several times throughout the page, I might end up using the same instance, and just wondered what the ramifications are of not disposing it.

You need to dispose everything that implements IDisposable.
The implementation of IDisposable signifies that the object holds onto something that the garbage collector doesn't intrinsically track - might be a connection, might be a file, might be some other handle - or might be nothing at all, it doesn't really matter. You shouldn't concern yourself with the implementation details because those are subject to change.
The class may or may not truly use unmanaged resources. It may or may not have a finalizer. It makes little difference; if the class implements IDisposable, then it's asking you to Dispose it when you're done. Even if the Dispose method does nothing, you never know when somebody will replace the reference to that class with a reference to a subclass that really does need to be disposed.

The short answer is that with Web Service Proxy Classes, you should Close them and not Dispose them.
In almost every case you should dispose of things that implement IDisposable. However, Web Service Proxy classes are a special case. With these classes, and all classes that inherit from System.ServiceModel.ClientBase, it is a best practice to not call dispose but to call the Close method directly.
Using reflector, you can see that the Dispose method of ClientBase simply calls Close. So if there are no exceptions, Dispose and Close will do the same thing. However if there is an exception, there will be different behaviors.
Because the Close method can throw exceptions, you should call it directly and catch it's exception. If you call the Dispose method, you should also catch the exceptions, but your code will be harder to understand.
This also means that you should avoid putting the declaration of the proxy in a using statement. In this case, if an exception is thrown in the using block, it will be obscured. The Dispose call that is auto generated by the using block will get called because it is in a finally block. The exception that is thrown from the Close in the Dispose will obscure whatever exception was previously thrown.
To see more detailed explinations, read these articles on MSDN, Coding Up Style, BlogginAbout.Net, and StackOverflow.
For the backstory on why it is implemented this way, check on this thread on the MSDN forums.

Sometimes Dispose() is just a dummy (inherited from a base class), but then it is still a good practice to call it, to be safe for future changes.
A WebService/WCF proxy is holding a connection, so it is certainly a good idea to call Dispose() or Close(). Doing so inside a using block is of course preferable since it is exception safe.
But in your case (using the proxy in multiple methods on your page) the use of multiple using blocks probably would take a performance hit. It is OK to replace the using blocks with a call Close() in an event that comes late in the page cycle. I'm not sure about ASP.NET best practices here, but I would use OnPreRender or OnPageUnload or something.
You will loose exception safety here but that is not a fundamental problem, the GC will solve that.

IMHO, there's nothing like disposing a web-service proxy class.
Most of the proxies are:
Stateless, as such calling using one instance or using multiple instances does not make any difference
Intermittent meaning that they close the connection as soon as all response is processed

Singleton with finalizer but not IDisposable

This is what I understand about IDisposable and finalizers from "CLR via C#", "Effective C#" and other resources:
IDisposable is for cleaning up managed and unmanaged resources deterministically.
Classes that are responsible for unmanaged resources (e.g. file handles) should implement IDisposable and provide a finalizer to guarantee that they are cleaned up even if the client code does not call Dispose() on the instance.
Classes that are responsible for managed resources only should never implement a finalizer.
If you have a finalizer then you must implement IDisposable (this allows client code to do the right thing and call Dispose(), while the finalizer prevents leaking resources if they forget).
While I understand the reasoning for and agree with all of the above, there is one scenario where I think it makes sense to break these rules: a singleton class that is responsible for unmanaged resources (such as providing a single point of access to particular files).
I believe it is always wrong to have a Dispose() method on a singleton because the singleton instance should live for the life of the application and if any client code calls Dispose() then you are stuffed. However, you want a finalizer so that when the application is unloaded the finalizer can clean up the unmanaged resources.
So having a singleton class with a finalizer that does not implement IDisposable seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do, yet this type of design is counter to what I understand are best practices.
Is this a reasonable approach? If not, why not and what are the superior alternatives?

I'd first mention that Object Oriented design patterns and their consequences do not always influence every language decision, even in Object Oriented languages. You can certainly find classic design patterns that are easier to implement in one language (Smalltalk) as opposed to another (C++).
That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the premise that a singleton instance should only be disposed at the end of an application. Nothing in the design pattern descriptions that I've read for Singleton (or Design Patterns: Elements of reusable Object-Oriented Software) mention this as a property of this pattern. A singleton should ensure that only one instance of the class exists at any one moment in time; that does not imply that it must exist for as long as the application exists.
I have a feeling that in practice, many singletons do exist for most of the life of an application. However, consider an application that uses a TCP connection to communicate with a server, but can also exist in a disconnected mode. When connected, you would want a singleton to maintain the connection information and state of the connection. Once disconnected, you may want to keep that same singleton - or you may dispose of the singleton. While some may argue that it makes more sense to keep the singleton (and I may even be among them), there is nothing in the design pattern itself that precludes you from disposing of it - if a connection is remade, the singleton can be instantiated again, as no instance of it exists at that moment in time.
In other words, you can create scenarios where it is logical for singletons to have IDisposable.

If the unmanaged resource is released only on application exit you don't even need to worry with a finalizer since the process unload should deal with this for you anyway.
If you have multiple app domains and you want to deal with an app domain unload that's one possible issue but possibly one you don't need to care about.
I second those saying that this design is possibly not the right thing to do (and will make it harder to fix is subsequently you find that you do actually need two instances)
Create the object (or a lazy loading wrapper object) in your entry point and pass it through the code to where it is needed making it clear who is responsible for providing it to whom, then you are free to change the decision to use only one with little effect to the rest of the code (which uses what it gets given)

As long as your finalizer doesn't call methods (such as Dispose) on any other managed objects, you should be fine. Just remember that finalization order is not deterministic. That is, if your singleton object Foo holds a reference to object Bar that requires disposal, you cannot reliably write:
~Foo()
{
Bar.Dispose();
}
The garbage collector might have collected Bar already.
At the risk of stepping into a pile of OO goo (i.e. starting a war), one alternative to using a singleton is to use a static class.

While it may get you code review gripes and FxCop warnings, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with implementing a finalizer without IDisposable. However, doing so on a singleton is not a reliable way to capture process or AppDomain tear-down.
At the risk of offering subjective design advice: If the object is truly stateless, make it a static class. If it is stateful, question why it is a Singleton: you're creating a mutable global variable. If you're trying to capture application close, deal with it when your main loop exits.

Applicability of Singleton to any particular situation aside,
I think there is nothing wrong with Disposing of Singleton. In combination with lazy instantiation it just means that you release resource if you do not need it temporarily, and then re-acquire it as needed.

If you want to create a singleton with a finalizer, you should probably have the static reference to it be a WeakReference. This will require a little bit of extra work to ensure thread-safety in the accessor, but it will allow the singleton to be garbage-collected when nobody is using it (if someone subsequently calls the GetInstance() method, they'll get a new instance). If a static strong reference were used, it would keep the singleton instance alive even if there were no other references to it.