In this particular case I find it a bit surprising that I've seen many examples of using SqlCommand objects in documentation from Microsoft, but I've never seen one which actually Disposes the SqlCommand object afterwards, have you? Best regards, Henrik Dahl "Nicholas Paldino [. Angel Saenz-Badillos[MS]. You should call Dispose on any object that implements IDisposable, this is very easy to do with C and the "using" keyword, in other.
In general adhering to this basic principle will greatly reduce stress related problems with your code and may increase performance as it makes cleaning up smarter. Something else to think about is that allthough currently the Command may not be doing anything meaningfull in its dispose method, there is no guarantee that this will be true for future releases of the framework. Calling dispose for all disposable objects will greatly enhance the lifetime of your code.
Please do not send email directly to this alias. This alias is for newsgroup purposes only. Angel, Yes, that's obvious, but how may it then be that there are many, many examples from Microsoft which do not invoke the Dispose method of SqlCommand objects, even examples which include Disposing e.
In the ". Which is correct? The reason that the samples in the microsoft documentation do not show calls to Dispose for the SqlCommand object is that, as it has been stated in this thread, this does nothing.
Looking at the ildasm of SqlCommand shows that it does not override dispose and just inherits it from the base. The person writing the sample knew this and coded accordingly. I have written some of the examples in the docs myself and have done the same thing. The problem is that as the next version of the urt rolls along there are no guarantees that dispose will keep doing nothing, it is also tedious to figure out exactly what objects you have to dispose at all costs SqlConnection!
The general rule of "if it implements idisposable, dispose it" will always work. I am familiar with the Quote you mention. This information was based on outdated information, for Beta 1 the SqlConnection did not implement a completelly managed pooling solution, instead it relied on Enterprise services object pooling.
There where a number of problems with this implementation but it was always meant to be temporary, the documentation was added to the Beta documentation to work arround some issues with Dispose and it was only fixed by v1.
The recommended usage for the same reasons as I am recomending always calling dispose is to call using Sqlconnection which automatically disposes and to call connection. Close , there is no perf penalty for calling both.
Angel, Thank you very much for your precise answer. I apologize if my answer seems brusque, I was trying to convey that disposing Idisposable objects is always a good thing, it is by no means necesary. Objects that do not require dispose to be called on today should continue to work as such for existing code, we will treat any changes in this behavior as a bug. My hope is that we can avoid any such bugs going forward but realistically there may be instances where this does not happen, there may also be cases where new features that use an object that does not require dispose today may require or benefit from the object being disposed in the future, this may make things even more confusing.
I guess my question is what kind of examples would you be interested to see in the documentation that ships with the next version of the URT? How do you rate your experience with the current batch of samples and how much would it help if they were to be rewritten?
One of the biggest problems with samples is that VB. Answered by:. Archived Forums. Also discuss all the other Microsoft libraries that are built on or extend the. Sign in to vote. Dispose ; conn. Close ; conn. Additionally, if I am disposing hte connection should I first explicitly call Close?
The shortest form is simply to call conn. Close ; however even this is questionable. Close may be valid since the connection is aware of the cmd object created with the conn. CreateCommand , however if the command object was created with new SqlCommand and then simply assigning the connection object, now the connection object may not be aware of the command -- in this case should cmd.
Dispose be called explicitly? Friday, April 15, PM. Hi Mike, C actually does have a very similar construct to what you're saying. If all objects are of the same type, you can use commas. Saturday, April 16, PM. Mike, Dispose actually calls Close so in a sense it is redundant. Personally I use a using clause with a close at the end of the block.
Ask Question. Asked 11 years, 11 months ago. Active 1 year, 8 months ago. Viewed 33k times. CreateCommand ; command. Open ; command. Improve this question. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. Pang 8, gold badges 82 82 silver badges bronze badges. On the other hand, not disposing a SqlCeCommand , for example, will cause your mobile device to run out of memory quite fast.
Just been there, done that Dispose doesn't suppress finalization since the constructor does that. EdwardBrey which constructor? EdwardBrey it's done only in the private constructor SqlConnection SqlConnection connection which can be called only from the Clone method. But none of the two normal public constructors does call GC. SuppressFinalize , only the Close method does. So I guess you're wrong. Sergey Sorry.
I linked to the wrong constructor. Show 3 more comments. Adam Ralph Adam Ralph Yes, the safest policy is to always dispose disposable objects - notably if you created it!
It's not a good idea for example to write a method that accepts a stream, and dispose the stream inside that method. Another caveat is that you can't always dispose via the using statement with impunity.
0コメント