Dispose pattern improvement?

[Andreas Huber]

Hi there

Is there a reason why .NET framework base classes implementing IDisposable
(like e.g. System.Componen tModel.Componen t) do not prevent multiple calls to
the protected virtual void Dispose( bool disposing ) function?

Derived classes would then no longer need to check whether they have been
disposed already and the associated bool member wouldn't be necessary
either.

Example code:

class Base : IDisposable
{
private bool disposed = false;

~Base()
{
if ( !this.disposed ) // *** here ***
{
Dispose( false );
this.disposed = true;
}
}

public void Dispose()
{
if ( !this.disposed ) // *** here ***
{
Dispose( true );
GC.SuppressFina lize( this );
this.disposed = true;
}
}

public void SomeMethod()
{
if ( this.Disposed )
{
throw new ObjectDisposedE xception( "Base" );
}

// ...
}

// This property is necessary so that subclass methods can check whether
// the object has been disposed.
protected bool Disposed
{
get { return this.disposed; }
}

protected virtual void Dispose( bool disposing )
{
if ( disposing )
{
// release my managed resources
}

// release my unmanaged resources
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
public void SomeOtherMethod ()
{
if ( this.Disposed )
{
throw new ObjectDisposedE xception( "Derived" );
}

// ...
}

protected override void Dispose( bool disposing )
{
try
{
if ( disposing )
{
// release my managed resources
}

// release my unmanaged resources
}
finally
{
base.Dispose( disposing );
}
}
}

[Jon Skeet]

Andreas Huber <ah****@gmx.net > wrote:

Is there a reason why .NET framework base classes implementing IDisposable
(like e.g. System.Componen tModel.Componen t) do not prevent multiple calls to
the protected virtual void Dispose( bool disposing ) function?

Derived classes would then no longer need to check whether they have been
disposed already and the associated bool member wouldn't be necessary
either.

In what way would the associated bool member not be necessary? You'd
still need to check whether or not the object had been disposed for
methods *other* than dispose itself (eg writing to a stream which has
already been disposed).

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Andreas Huber]

Jon Skeet wrote:

Andreas Huber <ah****@gmx.net > wrote:

Is there a reason why .NET framework base classes implementing
IDisposable (like e.g. System.Componen tModel.Componen t) do not
prevent multiple calls to the protected virtual void Dispose( bool
disposing ) function?

Derived classes would then no longer need to check whether they have
been disposed already and the associated bool member wouldn't be
necessary either.
In what way would the associated bool member not be necessary? You'd
still need to check whether or not the object had been disposed for
methods *other* than dispose itself (eg writing to a stream which has
already been disposed).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean as that's what the protected
Disposed property in the base class would be for...

I quote from my original message:
class Base : IDisposable
{ [snip] // This property is necessary so that subclass methods can check whether // the object has been disposed.
protected bool Disposed
{
get { return this.disposed; }
} [snip] } [snip] class Derived : Base
{
public void SomeOtherMethod ()
{
if ( this.Disposed )
{
throw new ObjectDisposedE xception( "Derived" );
}

// ...
}

[snip]

Regards,

Andreas

[Jon Skeet]

Andreas Huber <ah****@gmx.net > wrote:

In what way would the associated bool member not be necessary? You'd
still need to check whether or not the object had been disposed for
methods *other* than dispose itself (eg writing to a stream which has
already been disposed).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean as that's what the protected
Disposed property in the base class would be for...

Ah - sorry, I thought you were suggesting that the bool member in your
example wouldn't be necessary. I wasn't entirely clear about what you
were suggesting...

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Andreas Huber]

Jon Skeet wrote:

Andreas Huber <ah****@gmx.net > wrote:

In what way would the associated bool member not be necessary? You'd
still need to check whether or not the object had been disposed for
methods *other* than dispose itself (eg writing to a stream which
has already been disposed).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean as that's what the protected
Disposed property in the base class would be for...

Ah - sorry, I thought you were suggesting that the bool member in your
example wouldn't be necessary. I wasn't entirely clear about what you
were suggesting...

I see, sorry for being unclear...

Regards,

Andreas