...except, if you're given the object rather than creating it yourself, then its lifetime doesn't belong to you, and you don't need to be concerned with whether it's disposable.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Amir Kolsky
<amir.kolsky@...> wrote:
If A cares about this specific property it would require B to implement IDisposable.
From A¡¯s perspective, it is given an object of type B to perform a specific action. B would be available to A through an interface, not an implementation. Hence
A would not know that (say) B1 is the implementation of B, but rather know about B alone
?
?
?
?
Amir, I feel like I might be missing your point.?
Why is it unreasonable for A to know that B uses expensive resources and provides a way to release them early? Surely this was one of the considerations when choosing B over X or Y or Z. IMHO it's a characteristic, not an implementation
detail.
?
On 3 February 2014 15:19, Amir Kolsky <amir.kolsky@...> wrote:
?
?
Except that B must already be IDisposable. The IDisposable pattern requires that any object that owns an IDisposable must itself implement IDisposable.
?
n?
This is inane, as it requires the owning object to know about implementation details of it¡¯s ownee.
I disagree. All that A needs to know is that B implements the IDisposable interface.
? *
A has to know about something pertaining to B that has nothing to do with why A needs it.
?
