We Keep Coding

Should I Treat Entity Framework as an Unmanaged Resource?

I am working with a class that uses a reference to EF in its constructor.
I have implemented IDisposable, but I'm not sure if I need a destructor because I'm not certain I can classify EF as an unmanaged resource.
If EF is a managed resource, then I don't need a destructor, so I think this is a proper example:
public ExampleClass : IDisposable
{
public ExampleClass(string connectionStringName, ILogger log)
{
//...
Db = new Entities(connectionStringName);
}
private bool _isDisposed;
public void Dispose()
{
if (_isDisposed) return;
Db.Dispose();
_isDisposed= true;
}
}
If EF is unmanaged, then I'll go with this:
public ExampleClass : IDisposable
{
public ExampleClass(string connectionStringName, ILogger log)
{
//...
Db = new Entities(connectionStringName);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
}
~ExampleClass()
{
Dispose(false);
}
private bool _isDisposed;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (_isDisposed) return;
// Dispose of managed resources
if (disposing)
{
// Dispose of managed resources; assumption here that EF is unmanaged.
}
// Dispose of unmanaged resources
Db.Dispose();
_isDisposed = true;
//freed, so no destructor necessary.
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
Which one is it?

You would never want to use a finalizer (destructor) in this case.
Whether DbContext contains unmanaged resources or not, and even whether it responsibly frees those unmanaged resources or not, is not relevant to whether you can try to invoke DbContext.Dispose() from a finalizer.
The fact is that, any time you have a managed object (which an instance of DbContext is), it is never safe to attempt to invoke any method on that instance. The reason is that, by the time the finalizer is invoked, the DbContext object may have already been GC-collected and no longer exist. If that were to happen, you would get a NullReferenceException when attempting to call Db.Dispose(). Or, if you're lucky, and Db is still "alive", the exception can also be thrown from within the DbContext.Dispose() method if it has dependencies on other objects that have since been finalized and collected.
As this "Dispose Pattern" MSDN article says:
X DO NOT access any finalizable objects in the finalizer code path, because there is significant risk that they will have already been finalized.
For example, a finalizable object A that has a reference to another finalizable object B cannot reliably use B in A’s finalizer, or vice versa. Finalizers are called in a random order (short of a weak ordering guarantee for critical finalization).
Also, note the following from Eric Lippert's When everything you know is wrong, part two:
Myth: Finalizers run in a predictable order
Suppose we have a tree of objects, all finalizable, and all on the finalizer queue. There is no requirement whatsoever that the tree be finalized from the root to the leaves, from the leaves to the root, or any other order.
Myth: An object being finalized can safely access another object.
This myth follows directly from the previous. If you have a tree of objects and you are finalizing the root, then the children are still alive — because the root is alive, because it is on the finalization queue, and so the children have a living reference — but the children may have already been finalized, and are in no particularly good state to have their methods or data accessed.
Something else to consider: what are you trying to dispose? Is your concern making sure that database connections are closed in a timely fashion? If so, then you'll be interested in what the EF documentation has to say about this:
By default, the context manages connections to the database. The context opens and closes connections as needed. For example, the context opens a connection to execute a query, and then closes the connection when all the result sets have been processed.
What this means is that, by default, connections don't need DbContext.Dispose() to be called to be closed in a timely fashion. They are opened and closed (from a connection pool) as queries are executed. So, though it's still a very good idea to make sure you always call DbContext.Dispose() explicitly, it's useful to know that, if you don't do it or forget for some reason, by default, this is not causing some kind of connection leak.
And finally, one last thing you may want to keep in mind, is that with the code you posted that doesn't have the finalizer, because you instantiate the DbContext inside the constructor of another class, it is actually possible that the DbContext.Dispose() method won't always get called. It's good to be aware of this special case so you are not caught with your pants down.
For instance, suppose I adjust your code ever so slightly to allow for an exception to be thrown after the line in the constructor that instantiates the DbContext:
public ExampleClass : IDisposable
{
public ExampleClass(string connectionStringName, ILogger log)
{
//...
Db = new Entities(connectionStringName);
// let's pretend I have some code that can throw an exception here.
throw new Exception("something went wrong AFTER constructing Db");
}
private bool _isDisposed;
public void Dispose()
{
if (_isDisposed) return;
Db.Dispose();
_isDisposed= true;
}
}
And let's say your class is used like this:
using (var example = new ExampleClass("connString", log))
{
// ...
}
Even though this appears to be a perfectly safe and clean design, because an exception is thrown inside the constructor of ExampleClass after a new instance of DbContext has already been created, ExampleClass.Dispose() is never invoked, and by extension, DbContext.Dispose() is never invoked either on the newly created instance.
You can read more about this unfortunate situation here.
To ensure that the DbContext's Dispose() method is always invoked, no matter what happens inside the ExampleClass constructor, you would have to modify the ExampleClass class to something like this:
public ExampleClass : IDisposable
{
public ExampleClass(string connectionStringName, ILogger log)
{
bool ok = false;
try
{
//...
Db = new Entities(connectionStringName);
// let's pretend I have some code that can throw an exception here.
throw new Exception("something went wrong AFTER constructing Db");
ok = true;
}
finally
{
if (!ok)
{
if (Db != null)
{
Db.Dispose();
}
}
}
}
private bool _isDisposed;
public void Dispose()
{
if (_isDisposed) return;
Db.Dispose();
_isDisposed= true;
}
}
But the above is really only a concern if the constructor is doing more than just creating an instance of a DbContext.

C# provides garbage collection and thus does not need an explicit destructor. If you do control an unmanaged resource, however, you will need to explicitly free that resource when you are done with it. Implicit control over this resource is provided with a Finalize( ) method (called a finalizer), which will be called by the garbage collector when your object is destroyed.
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/programming-c/0596001177/ch04s04.html

using statement usage in C#

I have some doubts regarding the using statement:
I have a class called
MyJob which is Disposable. Then i also have a property on MyJob JobResults that is also Disposable.
MY code:
using (MyJob job = new MyJob())
{
//do something.
FormatResults(job.JobResults)
}
public string FormatResuls(JobResuts results)
{
}
MY First question is: In this case after the using block are both MyJob and MyJob.Results disposed or only MyJob and NOT MyJob.Results?
I am also performing parallel processing w.r.t Tasks in C#:
Tasks allTasks = List<Tasks>
try
{
foreach(Task t in allTasks)
{
// Each tasks makes use of an IDisposable object.
t.Start();
}
Task.WaitAll(allTasks);
}
catch(AggregateExecption aex)
{
/// How do I ensure that all IDisposables are disposed properly if an exception happens in any of the tasks?
}
My second q, in the code above, what is the proper way to ensure to dispose off objects correctly when handling exceptions in tasks?
Sorry if my questions are too naive or confusing, as i am still trying to learn and understand C#.
Thanks guys!

are both MyJob and MyJob.Results disposed or only MyJob and NOT
MyJob.Results?
That is subjective to the implementation of your Dispose method. As we haven't seen it in your question, I'll assume that you aren't currently disposing your Result property in MyJob.Dispose, hence it will be the latter.
As only MyJob is wrapped in a using statement, and again assuming it does nothing to your Result property, it will be disposed as opposed to Results, which isn't wrapped in a using statement.
You could decide that MyJob, as it encapsulates your Result property, is responsible for the disposable of it as well. If you decide so, you can dispose Results in MyJobs.Dispose.
what is the proper way to ensure to dispose off objects correctly when
handling exceptions in tasks?
If the delegate which is passed to the Task is wrapped in a using statement, you are safe, since using will transform your code to a try-finally block, if an exception occurs in your using block, the finally block will still run yourObject.Dispose.

Only MyJobs is disposed. For other properties, you need to understand object ownership: who owns the object should be responsible (in general) to dispose of it. A property implementing IDisposable could be used by other instances, so you can only dispose of it if you are the one who created it and there no other references to it, or the class fails gracefully if it knows that it has been disposed of.

There are a lot of good answers here but one thing remains. If you want to be assured that your object is properly disposed because it uses unmanaged resources, you should implement a destructor in your object, like:
class MyJob : IDisposable
{
private bool _disposed = false;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!_disposed)
{
//Dispose unmanaged resources and any child disposables here
}
}
void Dispose()
{
this.Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
~MyJob()
{
//ONLY use if you have unmanaged resources that DO NOT
//implement their own finalizers.
Dispose();
}
}
However, it is recommended that you DO NOT use a finalizer (destructor) unless you are finalizing a type with unmanaged resources that does not include its own finalizer.
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b1yfkh5e.aspx for best practices on implementing IDisposable.

1) The best way is to dispose JobResults inside of MyJob's Dispose() methode. Otherwise it's not disposed on it's own
2) I would implement the finally part, go through every object and dispose it. But in most cases you donät need to do that read this

Order of disposal for base classes

When a derived class overrides Dispose should the base class Dipose be called first before the derived class disposes of any local resources?
The reason I ask is because someone on our team is saying yes for every scenario, I'm trying to work out if this is good idea or just 'cargo cult' programming, I don't have a strong view either way.
Before:
public override void Dispose()
{
base.Dispose();
if (!_isDisposed)
{
_isDisposed = true;
if (_foo != null)
{
_foo.Dispose();
}
}
}
After:
public override void Dispose()
{
if (!_isDisposed)
{
_isDisposed = true;
if (_foo != null)
{
_foo.Dispose();
}
}
base.Dispose();
}
Note: I'm not looking for how to implement the basic dispose pattern but more clarification from peoples experiences.

"It depends"
You can't have a hard-and-fast rule for this, because the order you need to call dispose will depend on the implementation of the classes.
Sometimes you might want it at the start, sometimes at the end, and sometimes in the middle. Most of the time, it probably won't matter.
Generally speaking, people seem to call it first (in the absence of any other reason to call it at a different time).
One reason to lean towards calling it first is that then the derived class has a chance to do special stuff afterwards if it needs to.

You should think about the consequences of the different approaches. In most cases, the IDisposable objects owned by the base class will be independent of those owned by the derived class, and the order of disposal won't matter, provided none of the Dispose methods throws an Exception (*).
If it's critical to release an IDisposable resource, you could consider using try/finally to ensure all Dispose methods are called - but this isn't universally done. For example, the System.Component.Container class manages and disposes multiple IDisposable objects, but makes no attempt to ensure they are all disposed if an exception is thrown.
(*) It's perfectly legitimate for Dispose to throw: for example a FileStream might attempt to flush data to a network resource that's no longer available during Dispose.

Dispose object in the reverse order to create. So firstly is created base class, so it should be dispose in the end, and so on...

Why disposed object doesn't throw exception on using it after disposing?

Is it legal to call a method on disposed object? If yes, why?
In the following demo program, I've a disposable class A (which implements IDisposable interface).As far as I know, if I pass disposable object to using() construct, then Dispose() method gets called automatically at the closing bracket:
A a = new A();
using (a)
{
//...
}//<--------- a.Dispose() gets called here!
//here the object is supposed to be disposed,
//and shouldn't be used, as far as I understand.
If that is correct, then please explain the output of this program:
public class A : IDisposable
{
int i = 100;
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Dispose() called");
}
public void f()
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}", i); i *= 2;
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void Main()
{
A a = new A();
Console.WriteLine("Before using()");
a.f();
using ( a)
{
Console.WriteLine("Inside using()");
a.f();
}
Console.WriteLine("After using()");
a.f();
}
}
Output (ideone):
Before using()
100
Inside using()
200
Dispose() called
After using()
400
How can I call f() on the disposed object a? Is this allowed? If yes, then why? If no, then why the above program doesn't give exception at runtime?
I know that the popular construct of using using is this:
using (A a = new A())
{
//working with a
}
But I'm just experimenting, that is why I wrote it differently.

Disposed doesn't mean gone. Disposed only means that any unmanaged resource (like a file, connection of any kind, ...) has been released. While this usually means that the object doesn't provide any useful functionality, there might still be methods that don't depend on that unmanaged resource and still work as usual.
The Disposing mechanism exist as .net (and inheritly, C#.net) is a garbage-collected environment, meaning you aren't responsable for memory management. However, the garbage collector can't decide if an unmanaged resource has been finished using, thus you need to do this yourself.
If you want methods to throw an exception after the object has been diposed, you'll need a boolean to capture the dispose status, and once the object is disposed, you throw the exception:
public class A : IDisposable
{
int i = 100;
bool disposed = false;
public void Dispose()
{
disposed = true;
Console.WriteLine("Dispose() called");
}
public void f()
{
if(disposed)
throw new ObjectDisposedException();
Console.WriteLine("{0}", i); i *= 2;
}
}

The exception is not thrown because you have not designed the methods to throw ObjectDisposedException after Dispose has been called.
The clr does not automagically know that it should throw ObjectDisposedException once Dispose is called. It's your responsibility to throw an exception if Dispose has released any resources needed for successful execution of your methods.

A typical Dispose() implementation only calls Dispose() on any objects that it stores in its fields that are disposable. Which in turn release unmanaged resources. If you implement IDisposable and not actually do anything, like you did in your snippet, then the object state doesn't change at all. Nothing can go wrong. Don't mix up disposal with finalization.

The purpose of IDisposable is to allow an object to fix the state of any outside entities which have, for its benefit, been put into a state that is less than ideal for other purposes. For example, an Io.Ports.SerialPort object might have changed the state of a serial port from "available for any application that wants it" to "only usable by one particular Io.Ports.SerialPort object"; the primary purpose of SerialPort.Dispose is to restore the state of the serial port to "available for any application".
Of course, once an object that implements IDisposable has reset entities that had been maintaining a certain state for its benefit, it will no longer have the benefit of those entities' maintained state. For example, once the state of the serial port has been set to "available for any application", the data streams with which it had been associated can no longer be used to send and receive data. If an object could function normally without outside entities being put into a special state for its benefit, there would be no reason to leave outside entities in a special state in the first place.
Generally, after IDisposable.Dispose has been called on an object, the object should not be expected to be capable of doing much. Attempting to use most methods on such an object would indicate a bug; if a method can't reasonably be expected to work, the proper way to indicate that is via ObjectDisposedException.
Microsoft suggests that nearly all methods on an object which implements IDisposable should throw ObjectDisposedException if they are used on an object which has been disposed. I would suggest that such advice is overbroad. It is often very useful for devices to expose methods or properties to find out what happened while the object was alive. Although one could give a communications class a Close method as well as a Dispose method, and only allow one to query things like NumberOfPacketsExchanged after a close but not after a Dispose, but that seems excessively complicated. Reading properties related to things that happened before an object was Disposed seems a perfectly reasonable pattern.

Calling Dispose() doesn't set the object reference to null, and your custom disposable class doesn't contain any logic to throw an exception if its functions are accessed after Dispose() has been called so it is of course legal.
In the real world, Dispose() releases unmanaged resources and those resources will be unavailable thereafter, and/or the class author has it throw ObjectDisposedException if you try to use the object after calling Dispose(). Typically a class-level boolean would be set to true within the body of Dispose() and that value checked in the other members of the class before they do any work, with the exception being thrown if the bool is true.

A disposer in C# is not the same as a destructor in C++. A disposer is used to release managed (or unmanaged) resources while the object remains valid.
Exceptions are thrown depending on the implementation of the class. If f() does not require the use of your already disposed objects, then it doesn't necessarily need to throw an exception.

C# disposable objects

Are there some advices about how I should deal with the IDisposable object sequences?
For example, I have a method that builds a IEnumerable<System.Drawing.Image> sequence and
at some point I would need to dispose that objects manually, because otherwise this might lead to some leaks.
Now, is there a way to bind the Dispose() call to garbage collector actions, because I want these objects disposed right in the moment they are no longer accessible from other code parts?
**Or maybe you could advice me some other approach? **
Generally, this seems to be the same problem as it comes, for example, in unmanaged C++ without shared pointers, where you can have a method:
SomeObject* AllocateAndConstruct();
and then you can't be sure when to dispose it, if you don't use code contracts or don't state something in the comments.
I guess the situation with disposable objects is pretty the same, but I hope there is an appropriate solution for this.

(from the question)
Now, is there a way to bind the
Dispose() call to garbage collector
actions, because I want these objects
disposed right in the moment they are
no longer accessible from other code
parts?
GC doesn't happen immediately when your object goes out of scope / reach; it is non-deterministic. By the time GC sees it, there is no point doing anything else (that isn't already handled by the finalizer), as it is too late.
The trick, then, is to know when you are done with it, and call Dispose() yourself. In many cases using achieves this. For example you could write a class that implements IDisposable and encapsulates a set of Images - and wrap your use of that encapsulating object with using. The Dispose() on the wrapper could Dispose() all the images held.
i.e.
using(var imageWrapper = GetImages()) {
foreach(var image in imageWrapper) {
...
}
// etc
} // assume imageWrapper is something you write, which disposes the child items
however, this is a bit trickier if you are displaying the data on the UI. There is no shortcut there; you will have to track when you are done with each image, or accept non-deterministic finalization.

If you want to determiniscally dispose of the objects in the collection, you should call Dispose on each:
myImages.ToList().ForEach(image => image.Dispose());
If you don't do this, and if your objects become unreachable, the GC will eventually run and release them.
Now, if you don't want to manually code the Dispose calls, you can create a wrapper class that implements IDisposable and use it through a using statement:
using (myImages.AsDisposable()) {
// ... process the images
}
This is the needed "infrastructure":
public class DisposableCollectionWrapper<D> : IDisposable
where D : IDisposable {
private readonly IEnumerable<D> _disposables;
public DisposableCollectionWrapper(IEnumerable<D> disposables) {
_disposables = disposables;
}
public void Dispose() {
if (_disposables == null) return;
foreach (var disposable in _disposables) {
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
}
public static class CollectionExtensions {
public static IDisposable AsDisposable<D>(this IEnumerable<D> self)
where D : IDisposable {
return new DisposableCollectionWrapper<D>(self);
}
}
Also notice that this is not the same as the situation you described with C++. In C++, if you don't delete your object, you have a genuine memory leak. In C#, if you don't dispose of your object, the garbage collector will eventually run and clean it up.

You should design your system in a way that you know when the resources are no longer needed. In the worst case, they'll be eventually disposed when the garbage collector gets to it, but the point of IDisposable is that you can release important resources earlier.
This "earlier" is up to you to define, for example, you can release them when the window that's using them closes, or when your unit of work finishes doing whatever operations on them. But at some point, some object should "own" these resources, and therefore should know when they're no longer needed.

You can use the 'using' block, to make sure, the IDisposable is disposed as soon the block is left. The compiler does encapsulate such blocks into try - finally statements in order to make sure, Dispose is called in any case when leaving the block.
By using a finalizer, one can make the GC call the Dispose method for those objects which where "missed" somehow. However, implementing a finalizer is more expensive and decreases the garbage collection efficiency - and possibly the overall performance of your application. So if any possible, you should try to make sure to dispose your IDisposables on your own; deterministically:
public class Context : IDisposable {
List<IDisposable> m_disposable = new List<IDisposable>();
public void AddDisposable(IDisposable disposable) {
m_disposable.Add(disposable);
}
public void Dispose() {
foreach (IDisposable disp in m_disposable)
disp.Dispose();
}
// the Context class is used that way:
static void Main(string[] args) {
using (Context context = new Context()) {
// create your images here, add each to the context
context.AddDisposable(image);
// add more objects here
} // <- leaving the scope will dispose the context
}
}
By using some clever design, the process of adding objects to the context may can get even more easier. One might give the context to the creation method or publish it via a static singleton. That way, it would be available for child method scopes as well - without having to pass a reference to the contex around. By utilizing that scheme it is even possible, to simulate an artificial destructor functionality like f.e. known from C++.

The neat method would be to create your own generic collection class that implements IDisposable. When this collection class is Disposed() ask for each element if it implements IDisposed, and if so Dispose it.
Example (look elsewhere if you don't know about the IDisposable pattern)
public class MyDisposableList<T> : List<T> : IDisposable
{
private bool disposed = false;
~MyDisposableList()
{
Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
}
protected void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!disposed)
{
foreach (T myT in this)
{
IDisposable myDisposableT = myT as IDisposable;
if (myDisposableT != null)
{
myDisposableT.Dispose();
}
myT = null;
}
this.Clear();
this.TrimExcess();
disposed = true;
}
}
...
}
usage:
using (MyDisposableList<System.Drawing.Bitmap> myList = new ...)
{
// add bitmaps to the list (bitmaps are IDisposable)
// use the elements in the list
}
The end of the using statement automatically Disposes myList, and thus all bitMaps in myList
By the way: if you loaded the bitmap from a file and you forgot to Dispose() the bitmap you don't know when you can delete that file.

You can call GC.Collect() if you really was to dispose those objects right away but to my understanding it is up to the GC to decide whether to collect the memory.
This in turn will call the Finalize() method for each object that should be released.
Note that if the collection goes out of scope the GC will eventually collect the memory used by the images.
You can also use the using construct if you use a collection that implements IDisposeable. That will guarantee that the objects will be disposed exactly when the collection goes out of scope (or nearly after the end of the scope).