Disposing issue
in [CSharp]
|
From: Family Tree Mike on 3 Feb 2010 22:15 On 2/3/2010 9:16 PM, Mr. Arnold wrote: > Peter Duniho wrote: > > <snipped> > > What I see here Peter, if someone says anything that disagrees with you, > or is somehow detrimental to MS on an area, then the moderators will > block reading of the post. That's real good man real good. It's damage > control I guess, as seen by the same tactics being used in the MS Vista > forums. > > You may see the Using statement with rose colored glasses, I don't see > it in that light, I know it has problems and it doesn't work as > advertised 100% of the time. > > Yeah, MS and its problems with inferior products at times. It will never > face it. > > The way I read _your_ post which was deleted, it wasn't removed for any disagreement with Peter or MS. Your second to last paragraph could be construed as a threat, probably by an automatic thread reader. That thread reader probably was coded without a using statement, by the way... -- Mike
From: Mr. Arnold on 3 Feb 2010 22:35 Family Tree Mike wrote: > On 2/3/2010 9:16 PM, Mr. Arnold wrote: >> Peter Duniho wrote: >> >> <snipped> >> >> What I see here Peter, if someone says anything that disagrees with you, >> or is somehow detrimental to MS on an area, then the moderators will >> block reading of the post. That's real good man real good. It's damage >> control I guess, as seen by the same tactics being used in the MS Vista >> forums. >> >> You may see the Using statement with rose colored glasses, I don't see >> it in that light, I know it has problems and it doesn't work as >> advertised 100% of the time. >> >> Yeah, MS and its problems with inferior products at times. It will never >> face it. >> >> > > The way I read _your_ post which was deleted, it wasn't removed for any > disagreement with Peter or MS. Your second to last paragraph could be > construed as a threat, probably by an automatic thread reader. It was the truth, as I am not about to post any code up in here that's going to threaten my DoD security clearance. And I and several other ..NET programmers are questioning what is happening with that Using statement, as it doesn't seem to work 100% of the time as advertised, and information is out there on Google or Bing about it. > > That thread reader probably was coded without a using statement, by the > way... > LOL!
From: Tom Shelton on 4 Feb 2010 00:58 On 2010-02-04, Mr. Arnold <Arnold(a)Arnold.com> wrote: > Peter Duniho wrote: > ><snipped> > > What I see here Peter, if someone says anything that disagrees with you, > or is somehow detrimental to MS on an area, then the moderators will > block reading of the post. That's real good man real good. It's damage > control I guess, as seen by the same tactics being used in the MS Vista > forums. > > You may see the Using statement with rose colored glasses, I don't see > it in that light, I know it has problems and it doesn't work as > advertised 100% of the time. > > Yeah, MS and its problems with inferior products at times. It will never > face it. > > Actually, I have a guess as to what the problem maybe. I could be totally wrong, but I wonder if you are not getting an uncaught exception being thrown from your objects Dispose method... There is a reason Dispose should NEVER throw - but, if a rouge object does it can cause issues. For instance: public void SomeMethod() { // stuff using (ADisposableObject o = new ADisposableObject()) { // do a bunch of stuff } // dispose called implicitly here - dispose throws exception! // do more stuff } In many cases, you would catch it - but in a multithreaded scenario if SomeMethod is working on the background - well, it might appear to just mysteriously die in the middle if there is a bug in the error handling... -- Tom Shelton
From: Andreas Huber on 4 Feb 2010 05:57 "Mr. Arnold" <Arnold(a)Arnold.com> wrote in message news:Oh8cEAUpKHA.1892(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > What I see here Peter, if someone says anything that disagrees with you, > or is somehow detrimental to MS on an area, then the moderators will block > reading of the post. That's real good man real good. It's damage control I > guess, as seen by the same tactics being used in the MS Vista forums. The evidence doesn't fit your accusation, your post starting with: "Yes, it has been short circuited with the return like that..." is still available. If MS was doing "damage control" they would surely have deleted *that* post, right? > You may see the Using statement with rose colored glasses, I don't see it > in that light, I know it has problems and it doesn't work as advertised > 100% of the time. Well, your previous post very clearly claims that returning from the middle of a using block will *never* call Dispose. This is demonstrably false and you could have found that out yourself with a very simple test case. Just like with your "damage control" claim above you've obviously failed to consider all of the evidence before coming to your conclusion.
From: Mr. Arnold on 4 Feb 2010 11:39
Andreas Huber wrote: > "Mr. Arnold" <Arnold(a)Arnold.com> wrote in message > news:Oh8cEAUpKHA.1892(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> What I see here Peter, if someone says anything that disagrees with you, >> or is somehow detrimental to MS on an area, then the moderators will block >> reading of the post. That's real good man real good. It's damage control I >> guess, as seen by the same tactics being used in the MS Vista forums. > > The evidence doesn't fit your accusation, your post starting with: > > "Yes, it has been short circuited with the return like that..." > > is still available. If MS was doing "damage control" they would surely have > deleted *that* post, right? > >> You may see the Using statement with rose colored glasses, I don't see it >> in that light, I know it has problems and it doesn't work as advertised >> 100% of the time. > > Well, your previous post very clearly claims that returning from the middle > of a using block will *never* call Dispose. This is demonstrably false and > you could have found that out yourself with a very simple test case. Just > like with your "damage control" claim above you've obviously failed to > consider all of the evidence before coming to your conclusion. > > Well, I am going to standby my claim about it. One shoe doesn't fit all situations. The Using statement is suspect. Just like the Using statement didn't do a finally on WCF Web service calls in an iteration of more than five WCF calls to a WCF service wrapper. It didn't Dispose or close anything and left the connections open. And on the sixth iteration, the WCF aborted on timeouts on no more connection available - of 5 connections simultaneously the default That's all I have see to know that the finally is not being exceuted as you say it is 100% of the time. I am not testing anything, as I have already seen the Using statement not do what it's suppose to do, and I find it suspect. Yeah, I fixed the problem by getting rid of the Using statement period. I am not buying it, and the Using statement doesn't work as advertised 100% of the time. |