Disposing issue

[Peter Duniho]

Well, I am going to standby my claim about it. One shoe doesn't fit all
situations. The Using statement is suspect.

Prove it. Post an example that doesn't work.

[...]
I am not testing anything, as I have already seen the Using statement
not do what it's suppose to do, and I find it suspect.

You've never seen that the "using" statement doesn't do what it's
supposed to do.

Yeah, I fixed the problem by getting rid of the Using statement period.

You may have rearranged the code, and in doing so may have removed YOUR
bug that was causing problems. But merely changing from a "using"
statement to the equivalent "try/finally" did not fix any problem.

I am not buying it, and the Using statement doesn't work as advertised
100% of the time.

It works exactly as advertised, 100% of the time.

Pete

 

[Peter Duniho]

Peter Duniho wrote:

<snipped>

What I see here Peter, if someone says anything that disagrees with you,
or is somehow detrimental to MS on an area, then the moderators will
block reading of the post. That's real good man real good. It's damage
control I guess, as seen by the same tactics being used in the MS Vista
forums.

Oh, yeah. Microsoft's got my back. Don't dispute anything I write, or
else you'll be censored!


Uh, right. That's why all the other disagreements with me, including
your own, remain.

I had to check Google Groups to see what the fuss was about, since I
didn't see the original post on the Microsoft server. And yes, while I
didn't find the statement threatening (seems like an obvious – hackneyed
even – pop culture reference to me), I can see how it might be
considered by Microsoft to have crossed the line.

In response to the specific claims you made though:

– If there's a problem, it can be demonstrated without showing the
exact code in which you found it, proprietary, confidential, or
otherwise. Just create a specific proof-of-concept,
concise-but-complete code example that reliably demonstrates the problem.

Not that you'll be able to to. But that would be the way to prove your
case.

– You claimed that using "try/finally" instead of "using" is a "Best
Practices for Web Performance" recommendation. Well, I entered that
phrase in Google, and the only examples of it are from your own post.

I'm sure that there's no Microsoft statement that recommends
"try/finally" instead of "using" as a way of improving performance. But
please feel free to post a link to some reference that you think
provides that recommendation; I'll be happy to look through it and see
if it really says that. Most likely, you've simply misunderstood some
other statement.

Of course, even a recommendation to use "try/finally" instead of "using"
for performance would have nothing to do with _correctness_, which is
where you claim the "using" statement fails. But in either case, since
all that "using" does is cause the compiler to emit exactly the
"try/finally" code you'd write by hand, it's implausible that there
would be either a correctness or performance difference between the two.

Pete

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Prove it. Post an example that doesn't work.

And I am not posting anything up in here from a DoD contract.

[...]
I am not testing anything, as I have already seen the Using statement
not do what it's suppose to do, and I find it suspect.

You've never seen that the "using" statement doesn't do what it's
supposed to do.

I want to know where you Peter have walked in my shoes Jesus.

You may have rearranged the code, and in doing so may have removed YOUR
bug that was causing problems. But merely changing from a "using"
statement to the equivalent "try/finally" did not fix any problem.

MY BUG?

It works exactly as advertised, 100% of the time.

No it doesn't Jesus.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Peter Duniho wrote:

<snipped>

I am tired of you Jesus.

 

[Peter Duniho]

Peter Duniho wrote:

<snipped>

I am tired of you Jesus.

So, in other words, when asked to "put up or shut up", you choose the
latter.

Got it. Glad we could work this out.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

So, in other words, when asked to "put up or shut up", you choose the
latter.

Got it. Glad we could work this out.

I am going to tell you again dummy. It's code owned by the DoD, and I am
not posting it. And besides stupid, I haven been posting from home for
the last couple of days after getting out of the hospital this past
Monday, Jesus.

 

[Peter Duniho]

I am going to tell you again dummy.

Ah, yes…resorting to insults always helps your case.

It's code owned by the DoD, and I am
not posting it.

No one is asking you to.

And besides stupid,

More insults. Way to go! You're really getting traction now!

I have been posting from home for
the last couple of days after getting out of the hospital this past
Monday

So what? Is that supposed to excuse your poor behavior?

Jesus.

I appreciate the compliment, but you go much too far.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Peter Duniho wrote:

<snipped>

<pfft> Jesus <pfft>

It over man move on.

 

[Andreas Huber]

Well, I am going to standby my claim about it. One shoe doesn't fit all
situations. The Using statement is suspect.

Yep, you've already said that. Any comment about your "damage control"
claim?

Just like the Using statement didn't do a finally on WCF Web service calls
in an iteration of more than five WCF calls to a WCF service wrapper. It
didn't Dispose or close anything and left the connections open. And on the
sixth iteration, the WCF aborted on timeouts on no more connection
available - of 5 connections simultaneously the default

Prove it! And do spare us with your "the DOD owns the code" excuses. If the
using statement behaved as you claim it does, you'd be able to write a repro
in under an hour. By the way, a little bit of Googling would have shown you
that WCF Dispose methods sometimes throw exceptions. As pointed out by
others, this would perfectly explain the effects you are seeing, but is in
no way attributable to the using statement or try-finally blocks. Oh, and
let me make this cristal-clear: A Dispose method that can throws is buggy.

That's all I have see to know that the finally is not being exceuted as
you say it is 100% of the time.

You're jumping to conclusions, *again*. I've never claimed that. I said:
"Well, your previous post very clearly claims that returning from the middle
of a using block will *never* call Dispose. This is demonstrably false and
....". As others have already pointed out, there *are* cases where Dispose is
not called, e.g. when you kill a thread from unmanaged code or when the
runtime encounters a fatal error. These most likely do not apply in your
case however. The effects you are seeing are much more likely caused by a
bug in your own code or a buggy Dispose implementation.

I am not testing anything, as I have already seen the Using statement not
do what it's suppose to do, and I find it suspect.

See above, a bug in your code or a buggy Dispose implementation is much more
likely.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Andreas Huber wrote:

<snipped>

Move on man its not my code to begin with, it was in my face and I fixed
it running on the DoD network, which doesn't allow me to breach my
security clerance posted some code in this NG.

Understand this, you are nobody of any importance to me. and I don't
dance to your tune or any one's tune in a NG. You're not putting any
money in my pockets only your lip service so disappear and move on.

 

[Andreas Huber]

Understand this, you are nobody of any importance to me. and I don't dance

to your tune or any one's tune in a NG.

And I did not expect you to, you're claims are simply indefensible.

You're not putting any money in my pockets

Right, just like everybody else in this NG. Why do you even post here?

only your lip service

"lip service"? Besides a good .NET reference, obviously you should also add
a dictionary to your bookshelf.

so disappear and move on.

You don't put up but I should disappear just because you say so? Right.

 

[Peter Duniho]

Mr. Arnold wrote: [...]

For someone who think "it's over", you sure are having trouble staying
out of "it".

Andreas Huber wrote:

<snipped>

Move on man its not my code to begin with, it was in my face and I fixed
it running on the DoD network, which doesn't allow me to breach my
security clerance posted some code in this NG.

As has been explained numerous times now, if there's really a problem,
you don't need to post classified code to demonstrate it.

Or are you now trying to tell us that whatever "bug" you claim exists,
it ONLY ever happens if the code is classified? I _really_ look forward
to the non-explanation for how THAT could happen.

Understand this, you are nobody of any importance to me. and I don't
dance to your tune or any one's tune in a NG.

Then why do you bother to participate? Is it just your ego? Perhaps
that's why you have such trouble dealing with corrections when you post
something that's not true and someone else has to correct you.

For the rest of us, the others in the newsgroup _do_ have some
importance. There's a reason we try to get correct information out
there: to help other people, because those other people matter.

The only "tune" the rest of us have here is for information to be
correct. It's clear enough you don't dance to that tune, but that
doesn't mean the rest of us will keep quiet when incorrect information
has been posted, even by you.

You're not putting any
money in my pockets only your lip service so disappear and move on.

No one is paying you to post here. So by that logic, you should "move on".

Pete

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Peter Duniho wrote:

<snipped>
<not even reading your lip service>

You can't even learn to move on.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Andreas Huber wrote:

<snipped>
<not even reading your lip service>

You need to learn when to move on, as it is moot -- move on.