This seems like a fairly straightforward question, but I couldn\'t find this particular use-case after some searching around.
Suppose I have a simple method that,
When you call any method that returns something, an instance of that something is being created. Just because you're not actually capturing it, doesn't make it any less "there". Therefore, in the case of an IDisposable object, the object is being created by the method you're calling in spite of the fact that you're doing nothing with it. So yes, you still need to dispose of it somehow. The first approach with the using statement seems like it should work.
If a method returns an IDisposable
, I personally would always put it in a using
block. Even if I don't assign the return value to anything.
Even if you don't assign it to a variable, the disposable object is still created. Dispose
is not going to be called automatically. The only difference will be that the returned object will become immediately eligible for garbage collection, because there are no (strong) references to it.
The garbage collector does not call Dispose
automatically when it reclaims an object. However, most IDisposable
types provide a finalizer (which will be called just before the GC reclaims an object) that invokes Dispose
as a fallback strategy (safety net) — study the IDisposable pattern to see how this is done:
~SomeClass // <-- the finalizer method will usually call Dispose;
{ // but you have no control over when it will be called!
Dispose(false);
}
Remember that you don't know when the garbage collector will run (because it's non-deterministic). Therefore, you also don't know when the finalizer method will be called. And because of that -- if you haven't called Dispose
explicitly (either yourself, or with a using
block) -- you don't know when it will be called by the finalizer.
That's the advantage of calling Dispose
explicitly: You can free resources -- or at least allow the GC to free managed resources -- as soon as you're done with them, instead of holding on to resources until the finalizer gets called sometime in the future.
Yes, you don't want to leave the FileStream opened. For one, you won't even be able to open the file yourself after that. Calling Close() is good enough, but using using is probably the preferred pattern.
There's a much bigger problem with your code however. It cannot possibly work reliably on Windows. A typical scenario:
Kaboom.
Never write code like this, failure is extremely hard to diagnose. Only ever open a file when you are ready to start reading or writing to it. And don't close it until you are done.
Extra bonus: it is now obvious that you want to use a using statement.
Yes, you should definitely dispose of the FileStream
. Otherwise the stream will remain open and the file won't be usable until a finalizer happens to clean it up.
The important thing here is ownership: for File.Open
, the caller is assumed to "own" the stream returned to it - and if you own something which implements IDisposable
, it's your responsibility to dispose of it.
Compare this with the situation of Image.FromStream
: in that case, you pass in a stream and the Image
then assumes that it owns that stream. You mustn't close the stream yourself, in that case - you have to dispose of the image when you're done, and it will dispose of the stream.
Calling a static method which returns something disposable almost always assumes that the caller takes ownership of the resource. Ditto constructors (which are effectively static methods.)
The irony in this case is that if you don't dispose of the stream returned by File.Open
, you'll have found that the file is usable - at the same time as making it unusable until some indeterminate time.