From: Cor Ligthert[MVP] on
The last one or the first one in which he writes that dispose should always
be used?

The last one is completely different from the first one, and I am writing
about his first one, where he tells he is a follower from those who write.

They did not put for nothing the Idisposable interface on those classes. It
is a contract so it should be used.

I was not aware it was your opinion, but glad to know. Maybe you wont
believe, but then I don't agree that with you.

:-)

Cor

"Armin Zingler" <az.nospam(a)freenet.de> wrote in message
news:#FL2koO1KHA.3412(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Am 05.04.2010 19:18, schrieb Cor Ligthert[MVP]:
>>>
>> There is a guy here already a while active with the name Armin Zingler,
>
> I'm not really getting your point mentioning my name, but I was about to
> reply to Tom's message and say that I 100% agree with him.
>
> Despite, let's stay friends. ;)
>
> --
> Armin

From: Armin Zingler on
Am 05.04.2010 20:36, schrieb Cor Ligthert[MVP]:
> The last one or the first one in which he writes that dispose should always
> be used?
>
> The last one is completely different from the first one, and I am writing
> about his first one, where he tells he is a follower from those who write.

I read them again but I don't see a contradiction.

> They did not put for nothing the Idisposable interface on those classes. It
> is a contract so it should be used.

yes, should be used.

> I was not aware it was your opinion, but glad to know. Maybe you wont
> believe, but then I don't agree that with you.
>
> :-)


Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding?!

--
Armin
From: Cor Ligthert[MVP] on

> Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding?!
>
Yea, good words Armin, I hope so.

Cor
From: Gale Green on
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:15:11 +0200, "Michel Posseth [MCP]"
<msdn(a)posseth.com> wrote:

Thanks for all that, I shall have a read. I thought it was a fairly
straightforward question - I never expected to start a thread going.
Oh well.

I shall have to get the Balena book - I used his VB book when I first
started using VB6.

Thanks again.

Gale.

>
>Hmmm ,,,.........
>
>to the OP
>
>This is discussed here manny times and it mostly indeed ends in a nothing
>saying thread
>
>http://www.developersdex.com/vb/message.asp?p=1121&r=6705983
>http://bytes.com/topic/visual-basic-net/answers/444984-command-close-vs-command-dispose
>http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-3854824-3.php
>etc etc etc etc etc etc
>
>http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&source=hp&q=michel+posseth+dispose&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=6bc54ad77a0995ae
>
>Read a few of them and try some of the examples i showed in these threads
>and you will notice that your program in some of my described situations can
>run forever
>while if you follow the Not call dispose camp in the same situation your
>progs will crash or degrade overall system performance .
>
>In case you are wondering ,, yes i am in the call dispose and set to nothing
>camp when it actually makes sense to do so , and if you are in doubt just do
>it, as it also doesn`t hurt while omitting it wil sure hurt your app.
>
>As i am a so called "Balena" programmer i follow his design patterns ( wich
>actually conform to MS standards as he is also the writer of the MS VB core
>reference guides ) described in the Core reference guides of Visual Basic
>.Net and in these guide there are examples where a object pointer is set
>to nothing and it perfectly makes sence to do so , i have posted this
>example several times in the group so with the provided links you should
>find it :-) .
>
>Regards
>
>Michel Posseth
>
>
>
>
>"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstname(a)planet.nl> schreef in bericht
>news:eZVmWzK1KHA.6108(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Yes I've a point, don't tell Wabash, it seems just to create a Trolling
>> thread, this is not the VB6 newsgroup.
>>
>> You wrote
>> > There are objects that implement IDisposable that calling Dispose is not
>>> strictly necessary - such as DataSet. These objects actually end up with
>>> Dispose because they inherit from component. You may see advice from
>>> some
>>> that says to avoid calling dispose on these objects. I personally
>>> disagree
>>> with this advice for a number of reasons and suggest that you make it a
>>> strict
>>> rule to always call dispose if an object implments IDisposable.
>>
>> What you wrote, is the same reason why the OP was setting anything to
>> Nothing in VB6, somebody had written that and he took the chance that that
>> one was right as the best. Now you tell him that he should change that
>> practice to use on everything which implements Idisposable the "often"
>> senseless dispose method, which only trashes often code in the same way as
>> for ever using nothing in VB6.
>>
>> Form Closing
>> label1.dispose
>> Label2.dispose
>> Label3.dispose
>>
>> Why don't you write that he should always count like this.
>>
>> Result = Cint(X.ToString) += 1 because every value type implements even an
>> overloaded ToString method, so in your theory it must be used.
>>
>> All Forms controls and components implement the dispose method inherited
>> from the Component class.
>>
>> You know likewise me that where calling the dispose is needed, this for
>> forms and components is done implicit but since version 2005 hidden for
>> most beginners in VB.Net in the designer part.
>>
>> You know also very well, that I am almost the only one who shows in the
>> Microsoft Visual Basic forums samples with "using", so don't accuse me
>> from things, which you know that aint true.
>>
>> You know how some regulars in this newsgroup disagree about this with you,
>> while other of those agree, no problem but don't see it as a kind of
>> evangelism to newbie's, who have set in past everything to nothing, just
>> to take no risk and somebody wrote it.
>>
>> With every object which implements IDisposable, can be used with Using,
>> so calling Dispose has no sense anymore, use the better code for that, it
>> trashes at least not the code like I showed above.
>>
>> So where Dispose is needed it is better to use the Using keyword and if
>> you don't know, you can also use that using keyword.
>>
>> Luckily the newer Classes don't implement IDisposale anymore so much
>> anymore as in past.
>>
>> Your message could have also been without that sentence I quoted, it would
>> have been a good and correct message.
>>
>> Now it seems at least to me more a little bit to kick some regulars here
>> to the head.
>>
>> Cor
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message
>> news:#A0P71J1KHA.4204(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> On 2010-04-05, Cor Ligthert[MVP] <Notmyfirstname(a)planet.nl> wrote:
>>>> However, in fact Tom does not call the Dispose method in 90% of the
>>>> cases,
>>>> because he knows that those are implicitly called.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cor... It is true that I do not often call the Dispose method directly -
>>> I generally enclose disposable objects in a using block, which guarentees
>>> the
>>> call to dispose. The point that I was makeing is that I generally code
>>> to
>>> make sure that the object is disposed when I am done with it. I in fact,
>>> pointed this out in my post to the OP - the use of using. I am
>>> suggesting
>>> that the OP does likewise. Making sure a dispose call is made,
>>> implicitly via
>>> using, or explicitly amounts to about the same thing in my book.
>>>
>>> I wonder, did you have some valid point to make?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom Shelton
>>