Is it needed to set reference to null?

  • Thread starter Thread starter omtechguy
  • Start date Start date
O

omtechguy

Hi,

is it needed to set reference of a class to null when i finish to use
it or it will be done automaticly by the GC?
 
Hi,

is it needed to set reference of a class to null when i finish to use
it or it will be done automaticly by the GC?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "done automatically by the GC". If an
object is garbage collected,it means nothing held a reference to it.
As a result, you can't possibly check it for null, since there would
be
nothing to check.

Matt
 
Actually, it means that the object was not reachable.  There may in fact
still be references to it (i.e. in other unreachable objects), but those
references themselves cannot be accessed and so the object is not
reachable.
Click to expand...

Good clarification, thanks. The underlying point is the same, what
difference
would it make to the app as a whole?

Matt
 
Not sure what you mean by "done automatically by the GC". If an
object is garbage collected,it means nothing held a reference to it.
Click to expand...

No. It means that it is not reachable.
As a result, you can't possibly check it for null, since there would
be
nothing to check.
Click to expand...

Objects are GC'ed and setting the reference to null does not
make the object disappear.

Arne
 
is it needed to set reference of a class to null when i finish to use
it or it will be done automaticly by the GC?
Click to expand...

It is not necessary.

And in most cases it is not recommended.

The always set to Nothing paradigm from VB* is a
bad practice in .NET.

Arne
 
[...]
Not sure what you mean by "done automatically by the GC". If an
object is garbage collected,it means nothing held a reference to it.
Actually, it means that the object was not reachable.  There may in fact
still be references to it (i.e. in other unreachable objects), but those
references themselves cannot be accessed and so the object is not
reachable.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Good clarification, thanks. The underlying point is the same, what
difference
would it make to the app as a whole?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what your question means.

In terms of the question of the difference between "nothing held a
reference to it" and "is unreachable", there's a critical difference: GC
would not work nearly as efficiently if it worked as you described, because
it would take multiple collection iterations to free up objects that were
referenced within one or more levels of indirection.

With the "unreachable" implementation, objects are collected as soon as
they can be.
Click to expand...

No argument here.

What I meant was, to the application code, there is no difference
whether the
object is unreachable, or whether it is referred to, since you
wouldn't have any
way to get at it in either case from your own code.

From the system's point of view, of course, you are absolutely
correct.

Matt
 
Back
Top