Is there a recommended standard name for a C++/CLI member function to free resources?

KevinHall

I have just been learning about finalizers in C++/CLI and saw quite a bit of sample code that duplicated the same resource-freeing code in both the destructor and finalizer. It seems obvious to me that I should put the resource-freeing code in a single place -- another private member function (see sample code at the end of this message).

So I have to questions:

1. Am I doing the correct thing in this sample code Am I missing any important concept
2. Is there a recommended standard name for the C++/CLI member function to free resources

Many thanks for your help!

- Kevin Hall

ref class Resource
{
private:
// Is there a recommended standard
// name for this member function
void FreeResources()
{
Console::WriteLine(L"Freeing resources...");
}

public:
virtual ~Resource() // IDisposable
{
FreeResources();
}

protected:
!Resource() // Finalize
{
FreeResources();
}
};

Chuck the Code Monkey

This is the correct way to do it because Dispose and Finalize do the same thing, only Dispose can be called by a user where Finalize is to be called by the garbage collector. And as far as I know there is no standard naming scheme for the cleanup method. A nice feature of the C++/CLI compiler is when the compiler generates the IL for the destructor (translated to Dispose() ), the GC::SuppressFinalize method is automatically called so you don't have to worry about the finalizer getting called in addition to the dispose method (as can happen in C# and VB.NET)

- Chuck Atkins

KevinHall

Great. Many thanks for the information!

djdowd

why not this

public:
virtual ~Resource() // IDisposable
{
this->!Resource();
}

protected:
!Resource() // Finalize
{
FreeResources();
}

djdowd

which, as I understand, get's translated by the compiler to become

public:
void Dispose() // IDisposable
{
System::GC::SuppressFinalize(this);
Finalize();
}

protected:
void Finalize() // Finalize
{
FreeResources();
}

KevinHall

Yeah, I suppose that will work.

Thanks!

djdowd

actually, i recall now it didn't work.

believe i changed it to:

(*this).!Resource()