Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
When seeing about the whole finalizer/IDisposable issue, it is usual to see that, at the end, after all the long description, there will be something to the meaning of “LOL what I said was actually useless, you should use SafeHandle instead bye!”
So I am wondering in what case does SafeHandle not fit, such that you have to resort to the finalizer/IDisposable old way?
Clearly, when the unmanaged resource you are wrapping is not acquired through a handle. Which is rare but not unheard of. An example would be writing wrappers in C++/CLI code, commonly done to wrap a native C++ class. The resource is then memory. The unmanaged kind.
Nevertheless, you can spend a career writing managed code and never write a finalizer. Finalizers belong in the framework classes.