100

Is there a method, or some other light-weight way, to check if a reference is to a disposed object?

P.S. - This is just a curiousity (sleep well, not in production code). Yes, I know I can catch the ObjectDisposedException upon trying to access a member of the object.

Neil C. Obremski
  • 18,696
  • 24
  • 83
  • 112
  • 15
    Dunno. It seems curious that there isn't an `bool IsDisposed { get; }` declaration on `System.IDisposable`. – nicodemus13 Aug 09 '12 at 12:30
  • 3
    @nicodemus13: The `Dispose` method directs an object to release any and all resources it has acquired but not yet released. If an object never holds resources, its `Dispose` method generally won't have to do anything; if the type declares `void IDisposable.Dispose() {};` it can otherwise ignore `IDisposable` with no per-instance overhead. An `IsDisposed` property which was expected to become true following any `Dispose` call would necessitate adding an otherwise-unnecessary Boolean flag to every instance of many types that could otherwise ignore `Dispose`. – supercat Dec 07 '13 at 22:54
  • 1
    But, wherever you call a method on an object that implements `IDisposable`, how can you check whether it's been disposed of first? Rather than assuming it isn't and catching an exception? Or somehow you're meant to manage the lifetime so that you should always know whether it's disposed or not? – nicodemus13 Dec 16 '13 at 14:30
  • 3
    @nicodemus13: One should generally not use an object without knowing that it hasn't been and won't be disposed except in cases where one is prepared to regard disposal of the object by outside code as a signal to abort any pending actions with it. An `IsDisposed` flag may help prevent code from wasting time on operations that can't possibly succeed, but one would still need to handle an exceptions in the case an object gets disposed between the `IsDisposed` check and the attempt to use it. – supercat Feb 13 '15 at 20:42
  • `WeakReference` seems relevant here. It's not exactly an IDipose'd detector, but it does tell you if it's GC'd – Malachi Sep 14 '18 at 03:24
  • While this does not help all `IDisposable`s, and it requires ahead-of-time planning, if you have a `System.ComponentModel.IComponent`, there is a `Disposed` event you can attach to, as mentioned in [Moses' answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/52323611/199364) – ToolmakerSteve Nov 01 '18 at 19:17
  • @supercat *"except in cases where one is prepared to regard disposal of the object by outside code as a signal to abort any pending actions with it."* - exactly so. Interestingly, I just ran into a case in a Xamarin Forms on Android app, where when the app is resuming after sleep, a custom renderer on the current page attempts to use a Disposed bitmap. While I hopefully have fixed the underlying problem, just in case, I added try-catch around the Bitmap usage. Couldn't find any way to guarantee that the Image Source's Bitmap was not Disposed. – ToolmakerSteve Aug 06 '21 at 15:32
  • @ToolmakerSteve: If a class requires that `Dispose` only be called on the same thread as other methods, that will make it impossible to regain control of a thread which gets stuck waiting for something that will never happen. Allowing an asynchronous `Dispose` as a signal to abandon any operations in practice is a little icky, but it's massively better than simply killing the thread, and could be made less icky if more methods included an option to return without an exception in case of object disposal. – supercat Aug 06 '21 at 16:51

8 Answers8

51

No - default implementation of IDisposable pattern does not support it

Dandikas
  • 2,426
  • 2
  • 24
  • 32
44

System.Windows.Forms.Control has an IsDisposed property which is set to true after Dispose() is called. In your own IDisposable objects, you can easily create a similar property.

Ryan Lundy
  • 204,559
  • 37
  • 180
  • 211
  • 2
    The OP was looking to see if there is a similar property already on objects that he is not creating. This would be a good idea for objects we create, but most disposable classes in .NET do not follow this convention. Dandikas' answer is correct. – krillgar May 29 '14 at 15:07
  • 3
    @krillgar, there's nothing in the OP's question that supports your assertion. – Ryan Lundy May 18 '16 at 12:58
20

There is nothing built in that will allow this. You would need to expose an IsDisposed boolean property that reflects an internal disposed flag.

public class SimpleCleanup : IDisposable
{
    private bool disposed = false;

    public bool IsDisposed
    {
       get
       {
          return disposed;
       }
    }

    public SimpleCleanup()
    {
        this.handle = /*...*/;
    }

    protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
    {
        if (!disposed)
        {
            if (disposing)
            {
               // free only managed resources here
            }

            // free unmanaged resources here
            disposed = true;
        }
    }

    public void Dispose()
    {
        Dispose(true);
    }
}
Scott Dorman
  • 42,236
  • 12
  • 79
  • 110
  • 1
    BTW, if one starts using this pattern, it helps to define a new interface (`IDisposablePlus` or whatever) that inherits from `IDisposable` and includes `bool IsDisposed { get; }`. This makes it easy to know which of your `IDisposable` objects support `IsDisposed`. – ToolmakerSteve Nov 01 '18 at 19:23
  • I don't think you can inherit an interface because of how C# works. Placing an interface after a colon inherits it. I expect it would implement the interface on the other. – Moses May 11 '19 at 04:06
  • @Moses - An interface A certainly can inherit another interface B. Did you try it? The result is that any class C which implements A is required to also implement B. – ToolmakerSteve Aug 06 '21 at 15:15
9

If it is not your class and it doesn't provide an IsDisposed property (or something similar - the name is just a convention), then you have no way of knowing.

But if it is your class and you are following the canonical IDisposable implementation, then just expose the _disposed or _isDisposed field as a property and check that.

jop
  • 82,837
  • 10
  • 55
  • 52
1

The Dispose method is required to perform whatever cleanup will be required before an object is abandoned; if no cleanup is required, it is not required to do anything. Requiring an object to keep track of whether it has been disposed, even when the Dispose method would otherwise do nothing, would require many IDisposable objects to add a flag for very limited benefit.

It might have been helpful if IDisposable included two properties--one which indicated whether an object needed disposing, and one of which indicated that the object had not been rendered useless by disposal. For objects where disposal actually does something, both values would be initially true, and would become false after Dispose. For objects where disposal doesn't need to do any cleanup, the first method could always return false and the second one always true, without having to store a flag anywhere. I don't think there's any way those can be added to .NET now, though.

supercat
  • 77,689
  • 9
  • 166
  • 211
  • IMHO, two flags is overkill. I think it is better to stick with the usual paradigm, where one has a single flag once Dispose has been called on an object. Otherwise you add complexity, merely to know that certain objects "are still useful" even though Dispose has been called on them. Its not worth going down that road. – ToolmakerSteve Nov 01 '18 at 18:53
  • @ToolmakerSteve: There would be generally zero or one flags. For objects that require disposal, the "needs disposing" and "is useful" properties would yield "true/true" prior to dispose and "false/false" afterward, but for objects where disposal would be a no-op, both would unconditionally return "false/true". Saying that an object still needs disposing when it never does, or that an object isn't useful when it always is, would be rather icky. I suppose another approach would be to use an enumerated type to indicate whether a type needs disposing, has been disposed, or simply doesn't care. – supercat Nov 01 '18 at 18:58
  • @ToolmakerSteve: I think the big reason `IDisposable` doesn't have a `Disposed` property is that it would have been perceived as odd to have objects where calling `Dispose` wouldn't set such a property to `true`, but requiring that objects keep track of whether `Dispose` was called in cases where they would otherwise have no reason to care would add significant cost and little benefit. – supercat Nov 01 '18 at 19:43
1

I see this is old, but I did not see an answer. Some not all disposable objects like a DataSet have a disposed event you can attach.

class DisposeSample : IDisposable
{
    DataSet myDataSet = new DataSet();
    private bool _isDisposed;

    public DisposeSample()
    {
        // attach dispose event for myDataSet
        myDataSet.Disposed += MyDataSet_Disposed;
    }

    private void MyDataSet_Disposed(object sender, EventArgs e)
    {
        //Event triggers when myDataSet is disposed
        _isDisposed = true; // set private bool variable as true 
    }


    public void Dispose()
    {
        if (!_isDisposed) // only dispose if has not been disposed;
            myDataSet?.Dispose(); // only dispose if myDataSet is not null;
    }
}
Moses
  • 78
  • 6
0

A shortcut way to check if object is disposed using Extension method could be

public static class ObjectExtensions 
{
    public static bool IsDisposed(this object obj)
    {
        try
        {
            obj.ToString();
            return false;
        }
        catch (ObjectDisposedException)
        {
            return true;
        }
    }

}

//Usage
if(myObject.IsDisposed()){ 
    /* Do your Stuff */ 
}
Asad Mehmood
  • 135
  • 8
-1

What I like to do is declare the objects without initializing them, but set their default values to Nothing. Then, at the end of the loop I write:

If anObject IsNot Nothing Then anObject.Dispose()

Here is a complete sample:

Public Sub Example()
    Dim inputPdf As PdfReader = Nothing, inputDoc As Document = Nothing, outputWriter As PdfWriter = Nothing

    'code goes here that may or may not end up using all three objects, 
    ' such as when I see that there aren't enough pages in the pdf once I open  
    ' the pdfreader and then abort by jumping to my cleanup routine using a goto ..

GoodExit:
    If inputPdf IsNot Nothing Then inputPdf.Dispose()
    If inputDoc IsNot Nothing Then inputDoc.Dispose()
    If outputWriter IsNot Nothing Then outputWriter.Dispose()
End Sub

This also works great for putting your main objects at the top of a routine, using them inside a Try routine, and then disposing them in a Finally block:

Private Sub Test()
    Dim aForm As System.Windows.Forms.Form = Nothing
    Try
        Dim sName As String = aForm.Name  'null ref should occur
    Catch ex As Exception
        'got null exception, no doubt
    Finally
        'proper disposal occurs, error or no error, initialized or not..
        If aForm IsNot Nothing Then aForm.Dispose()
    End Try
End Sub
Cody Gray - on strike
  • 239,200
  • 50
  • 490
  • 574
  • 6
    @LarsHöppner: The essence of the question is language-agnostic, and good C# developers should probably know at least enough VB.NET to read the above code (and VB.NET developers should likewise learn enough C# to read C# code that doesn't do anything particularly exotic). – supercat Dec 07 '13 at 22:55
  • 4
    Why would you do all of this instead of using a `Using` statement? That certainly existed back in 2013 when this answer was written. – Cody Gray - on strike Jan 05 '17 at 15:26
  • 1
    Really "GoodExit:" what is this 1983 for a GOTO?? Please stop using that. – Moses Sep 14 '18 at 01:01
  • This does not answer the question. Specifically, once `inputPdf` has been set to a value (other than Nothing), your answer shows no way of knowing whether `inputPdf` has been disposed. You could *partly* address this by setting `inputPdf = Nothing` after disposing. However this would not help any *other* variables that have been pointed to the same object as `inputPdf`. That is if you do: `inputPdf = New PdfReader`, `Dim pdf2 As PdfReader = inputPdf`, `inputPdf.Dispose`, `inputPdf = Nothing`, there would still be no way to know that `pdf2` is disposed (it is the same object as `inputPdf`). – ToolmakerSteve Nov 01 '18 at 19:12