why not keep a static reference to an instance of the class instead of using a static class?
Cheers, Greg On 9/17/08, Simon Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a static class that holds quite a few unmanaged resources (it > basically loads/creates a large number of GDI+ bitmaps, brushes and pens > that are likely to be used at regular intervals by the application). Being > concerned about resource cleanup, I naturally ( :) ) thought about their > disposal. However, static classes do not allow finalizers to be defined. > > In one sense that makes sense - the reason for having a static class that > manages these resources is that they are likely to be required repeatedly > right up until the app shuts down. However I am a bit nervous - this means > I'm entirely dependant on Windows to release all these resources when the > process ends, and although Windows should do that, to be honest I'm not > 100% sure I trust it to do so, I'd feel more comfortable if my managed > code contained something to explicitly ensure these resources are > released. (I trust .NET rather more than I trust the Windows OS :) ) > > Any thoughts? Am I being too cautious when I should just trust Windows to > handle resource release, or is there some other way to deal with this > situation? > > =================================== > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(R) http://www.develop.com > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com > -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
