| Groups | Blog | Home |
dotnet faqs : Garbage Collectionin .NET
garbage collected. After all, if your object isn't referenced somehow, then you wouldn't be able to access it anyway. The article at http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/1200/gci2/default.aspx gives an overview of garbage collection in the .NET Framework. [quoted text, click to view] "Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message news:eF4EZ8k3DHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Cant i use > GC.SuppressFinalize method for this? Just read it in msdn. > > "Randy A. Ynchausti" <randy_ynchausti@msn.com> wrote in message > news:ObNRg6k3DHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > Rimonne, > > > > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > > > released. > > > > > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > > > All you have to do is make sure your application has a reference to the > > object. Therefore, it will never be released. > > > > Regards, > > > > Randy > > > > > >
Rimonne,
[quoted text, click to view] > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > released. > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? All you have to do is make sure your application has a reference to the object. Therefore, it will never be released. Regards, Randy
Hello,
I suggest creating a "C# static" variable to keep the referance. Hope this helps. -- Glen Jones MCSD [quoted text, click to view] "Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message news:OHSA9Yk3DHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hi All > > I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run > automatically and release memory. > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > released. > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > An urgent response is neede, as I am struck up with my development work > here. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > Regards. > >
[quoted text, click to view] >Cant i use >GC.SuppressFinalize method for this? Just read it in msdn. No, GC.SuppressFInalize just prevents the Finalize method from being called (good for performance) once the object is collected. As Randy said, keep a live reference to the object. Mattias -- Mattias Sjögren [MVP] mattias @ mvps.org http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ | http://www.dotnetinterop.com
..NET keeps track of your objects through a set of reference tables.
Every now and then (you have no control of when, though you can attempt = to = force it using System.GC.Collect()) the garbage collector will go throug= h = these tables and flag objects your program has no references to anymore.= It will then unravel these objects (which may have references of its own= ) = and release it from memory. After that it will rearrange your objects to tidy up the use of memory = (allocating memory under .NET is actually faster than in native C). However, since you have no control of when it runs, time and performance= = critical applications may find that the garbage collector may run at a = time you really don't want it to. In that case, you can turn it off = alltogether and handle all memory by yourself. Another limitation is using resources, like file handlers and database = connections, of which it isn't very good at cleaning up itself. So any = object that has a Close() method you should call Close() on when you are= = finished using it. PS! To release an object simply set the reference to null. The object = will float into the unknown, waiting to be eaten by the garbage collecto= r. -- = Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ For a laugh, try web browsing with Opera's User Mode and Nostalgia enabl=
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:10:34 -0800, Ed Kaim [MSFT] =
[quoted text, click to view] <edkaim@online.microsoft.com> wrote: => That isn't necessary. As long as your object is referenced, it won't b= e > garbage collected. After all, if your object isn't referenced somehow,= [quoted text, click to view] > then you wouldn't be able to access it anyway. Actually, you can. You can write code in the object that refreshes it's= = reference when it is about to be collected. I can't think of any reason= = to do that, but you can. -- = Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ For a laugh, try web browsing with Opera's User Mode and Nostalgia enabl=
Hi All
I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run automatically and release memory. But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be released. Can I achieve this in .NET ? An urgent response is neede, as I am struck up with my development work here. Thanks a lot for your time. Regards.
Rimonne,
Have you considered implementing the Singleton Pattern? (or a variation there of). http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/singleton.html Hope this helps Jay [quoted text, click to view] "Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message news:OHSA9Yk3DHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hi All > > I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run > automatically and release memory. > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > released. > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > An urgent response is neede, as I am struck up with my development work > here. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > Regards. > >
[quoted text, click to view]
"Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message > > I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run > automatically and release memory. > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > released. > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? I think that: Object.Dispose(); should do it. Regards, Milica
Cant i use
GC.SuppressFinalize method for this? Just read it in msdn. [quoted text, click to view] "Randy A. Ynchausti" <randy_ynchausti@msn.com> wrote in message news:ObNRg6k3DHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > Rimonne, > > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > > released. > > > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > All you have to do is make sure your application has a reference to the > object. Therefore, it will never be released. > > Regards, > > Randy > >
This article applies to remoted objects, not to local objects. A local
object does not require activity to remain in existance. [quoted text, click to view] "Max-Ph. Blickenstorfer" <max@mbs-software.com> wrote in message news:Oa50D8q3DHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > Hi Rimone, > After reading the various replies you've got so far. My reply would be best > described in this article: > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/12/leasemanager/default.aspx > > Acording to above article it is not enought to hold a reference to the > object, the object must recognize some activity. To make sure the connection > will not be marked for garbage collection you have to work with "Leases". > For each created object the framework creates a lease. This lease is managed > by the frameoworks lease manager. By default an object is marked as inactive > after 5 minutes inactivity. However, you can manipulate the lease behaving > and create a callback interface on your clients side. This callback function > will be called by the lease manager and your client can specify whether the > server side object can be disposed or not. In fact it would be good your > client side object implements IDispose, so your client can release resources > when you feel it's appropriate for it. > > Another good article covering remoting objects is in CodeMagazine Jan/Feb > 2003. Even nearli a year old - it contains quite a bit content. > http://www.code-magazine.com/ > > Anyway, I hope the above linkes can bring some light into this behaving. > > Regards > Max > > > > > "Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message > news:OHSA9Yk3DHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > > Hi All > > > > I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run > > automatically and release memory. > > > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > > released. > > > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > > > An urgent response is neede, as I am struck up with my development work > > here. > > > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > > > Regards. > > > > > >
Oops! That is something we are trying not to do. If Dispose is called on
the object, you are infact telling that the resources held by object be released (and hence no finalization be required). As some folks already said, in order to achieve what you trying, I guess you can keep the reference of the object somewhere alive. This can be a static member of class and you make sure that you do not set the this to null/nothing in your code. This object's gonna be there till the appdomain in which this object exists unloads. -- HTH, Manoj G [.NET MVP] Site: http://www15.brinkster.com/manoj4dotnet Blog: http://msmvps.com/manoj/ [quoted text, click to view] "Milica Bogovac" <milica@datawarehouse.com> wrote in message news:bug9cb$4d0$1@news.eunet.yu... > "Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message > > > > I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run > > automatically and release memory. > > > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > > released. > > > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > > I think that: > > Object.Dispose(); > > should do it. > > Regards, Milica > >
Hi Rimone,
After reading the various replies you've got so far. My reply would be best described in this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/12/leasemanager/default.aspx Acording to above article it is not enought to hold a reference to the object, the object must recognize some activity. To make sure the connection will not be marked for garbage collection you have to work with "Leases". For each created object the framework creates a lease. This lease is managed by the frameoworks lease manager. By default an object is marked as inactive after 5 minutes inactivity. However, you can manipulate the lease behaving and create a callback interface on your clients side. This callback function will be called by the lease manager and your client can specify whether the server side object can be disposed or not. In fact it would be good your client side object implements IDispose, so your client can release resources when you feel it's appropriate for it. Another good article covering remoting objects is in CodeMagazine Jan/Feb 2003. Even nearli a year old - it contains quite a bit content. http://www.code-magazine.com/ Anyway, I hope the above linkes can bring some light into this behaving. Regards Max [quoted text, click to view] "Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message news:OHSA9Yk3DHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hi All > > I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run > automatically and release memory. > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > released. > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > An urgent response is neede, as I am struck up with my development work > here. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > Regards. > >
Hi Daniel,
You're right - my head currently sticks in remoting objects to .net and mfc clients and of course lifetime/validity of those objects. Thanks for the justification. Regards Max [quoted text, click to view] "Daniel O'Connell" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in message news:#AHKI#r3DHA.2296@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > This article applies to remoted objects, not to local objects. A local > object does not require activity to remain in existance. > "Max-Ph. Blickenstorfer" <max@mbs-software.com> wrote in message > news:Oa50D8q3DHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > Hi Rimone, > > After reading the various replies you've got so far. My reply would be > best > > described in this article: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/12/leasemanager/default.aspx > > > > Acording to above article it is not enought to hold a reference to the > > object, the object must recognize some activity. To make sure the > connection > > will not be marked for garbage collection you have to work with "Leases". > > For each created object the framework creates a lease. This lease is > managed > > by the frameoworks lease manager. By default an object is marked as > inactive > > after 5 minutes inactivity. However, you can manipulate the lease behaving > > and create a callback interface on your clients side. This callback > function > > will be called by the lease manager and your client can specify whether > the > > server side object can be disposed or not. In fact it would be good your > > client side object implements IDispose, so your client can release > resources > > when you feel it's appropriate for it. > > > > Another good article covering remoting objects is in CodeMagazine Jan/Feb > > 2003. Even nearli a year old - it contains quite a bit content. > > http://www.code-magazine.com/ > > > > Anyway, I hope the above linkes can bring some light into this behaving. > > > > Regards > > Max > > > > > > > > > > "Rimonne" <not@moreply.com> wrote in message > > news:OHSA9Yk3DHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > > > Hi All > > > > > > I understand that the .net framework has garbagecollectors which run > > > automatically and release memory. > > > > > > But in my application in C#, i have an object which should never be > > > released. > > > > > > Can I achieve this in .NET ? > > > > > > An urgent response is neede, as I am struck up with my development work > > > here. > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > > > > > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |