"kjon" <y@y.co> wrote in message
news:OGibOaGWEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I always dispose any object with the following:
> If not (obj1 is nothing) then obj1.dispose
>
> Now I wonder if that is the correct way of disposing an object? Should I
use
> obj1 = Nothing after the dispose? Pls advice. Thanks.
>
>

kjon <y@y.co> wrote:
> I always dispose any object with the following:
> If not (obj1 is nothing) then obj1.dispose
>
> Now I wonder if that is the correct way of disposing an object? Should I use
> obj1 = Nothing after the dispose? Pls advice. Thanks.

> Marinawrote:

> > You do not need to set anything to Nothing. You only needed to do that
in
> > VB6.
> >
>
>

> You do not need to set anything to Nothing. You only needed to do that in
> VB6.
>

> In my experience, it's very rare to have members which are unneeded
> until the rest of the object becomes eligible for garbage collection.
> In fact, I can't remember the last time it made sense to set something
> to null just for the sake of garbage collection.

AlexS <salexru2000NO@SPAMsympaticoPLEASE.ca> wrote:
> This is standard misconception and recipe for future problems. GC is able to
> cope only with limited number of allocations per time unit and is not ideal,
> read has limitations. If it is not able to detect that reference could be
> freed, related resource might survive through many GC cycles.

> See
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/architecture/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnpag/html/scalenet.asp
> for additional details.

> This is standard misconception and recipe for future problems. GC is able
to
> cope only with limited number of allocations per time unit and is not
ideal,
> read has limitations. If it is not able to detect that reference could be
> freed, related resource might survive through many GC cycles.
> See
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/architecture/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnpag/html/scalenet.asp
> for additional details.
>
> HTH
> Alex
>
> > > You do not need to set anything to Nothing. You only needed to do that
> in
> > > VB6.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

AlexS <salexru2000NO@SPAMsympaticoPLEASE.ca> wrote:
> > In my experience, it's very rare to have members which are unneeded
> > until the rest of the object becomes eligible for garbage collection.
> > In fact, I can't remember the last time it made sense to set something
> > to null just for the sake of garbage collection.
>
> Like I said it depends on application. Local variables allocated on stack -
> I agree, there is not much sense in nulling them. However, I would suggest
> to check the topic "Set Unneeded Member Variables to Null Before Making
> Long-Running Calls" in the link I recommended. It explains some of caveats
> with local variables. Problem is that any heap allocation under certain
> conditions can survive GC cycles for very long periods of time. Which
> finally can cause troubles. That's why I suggest not to adopt generic rules,
> which might work or not. Definition of long call is very application
> specific.