Should objects that implement IDisposable always be Dispose'd?

[Rich]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

I notice that lots of the GDI+ objects implement IDisposable:
SolidBrush, FontFamily, Font, etc.

If I don't explicitly call Dispose() on these guys after I'm done with
them, what is the downside? Is it just a longer/more frequent garbage
collection, or is it worse?

Personally, I allocate such temporary objects inside C#'s using
statement, but not everyone does this and I'm wondering what the
repurcussions could be.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>

[Alan Pretre]

"Rich" <le*************@mail.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:O7*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

I notice that lots of the GDI+ objects implement IDisposable:
SolidBrush, FontFamily, Font, etc.

If I don't explicitly call Dispose() on these guys after I'm done with
them, what is the downside? Is it just a longer/more frequent garbage
collection, or is it worse?

Personally, I allocate such temporary objects inside C#'s using
statement, but not everyone does this and I'm wondering what the
repurcussions could be.

These days I think it wold be next to impossible to inadvertantly exhaust
GDI resources. Nevertheless, I think it is good practice to Dispose()
objects if they supply Dispose(). Since .NET designers didn't build in a
deterministic destructor mechanism, the onus is on you as the consumer of
the object to play by the rules.

using() works well when the life cycle of the object can be localized within
a single routine.

-- Alan

[Eric Gunnerson [MS]]

If you are creating instances of these objects over and over (like whenever
you paint), calling Dispose() is a good idea.

If you only create one in your program, calling Dispose() before you exit is
okay, but not really required.

--
Eric Gunnerson

Visit the C# product team at http://www.csharp.net
Eric's blog is at http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/ericgu/

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Rich" <le*************@mail.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:O7*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

I notice that lots of the GDI+ objects implement IDisposable:
SolidBrush, FontFamily, Font, etc.

If I don't explicitly call Dispose() on these guys after I'm done with
them, what is the downside? Is it just a longer/more frequent garbage
collection, or is it worse?

Personally, I allocate such temporary objects inside C#'s using
statement, but not everyone does this and I'm wondering what the
repurcussions could be.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>

[Rich]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

"Eric Gunnerson [MS]" <er****@online.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<ed**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl> thusly:

If you are creating instances of these objects over and over (like whenever
you paint), calling Dispose() is a good idea.

Its not necessarily in response to a paint message, but it could be a
heavily travelled code path. Basically what I'm hearing confirms my
idea that the rule should be to call Dispose on anything that's
IDisposable.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>