Should I use IDisposable for purely managed resources?

Here is the scenario:

I have an object called a Transaction that needs to make sure that only one entity has permission to edit it at any given time.

In order to facilitate a long-lived lock, I have the class generating a token object that can be used to make the edits.

You would use it like this:

var transaction = new Transaction();

using (var tlock = transaction.Lock())
{
    transaction.Update(data, tlock);
}

Now, I want the TransactionLock class to implement IDisposable so that its usage can be clear. But, I don't have any unmanaged resources to dispose. however, the TransctionLock object itself is a sort of "unmanaged resource" in the sense that the CLR doesn't know how to properly finalize it.

All of this would be fine and dandy, I would just use IDisposable and be done with it.

However, my issue comes when I try to do this in the finalizer:

~TransactionLock()
{
    this.Dispose(false);
}

I want the finalizer to release the transaction from the lock, if possible. How, in the finalizer, do I detect if the parent transaction (this.transaction) has already been finalized?

Is there a better pattern I should be using?

Also, the Transaction class itself needn't be disposable, because it doesn't maintain a reference to the lock, and doesn't care whether or not it is unlocked when it goes to the grave.

---

The Transaction class looks something like this:

public sealed class Transaction
{
    private readonly object lockMutex = new object();

    private TransactionLock currentLock;

    public TransactionLock Lock()
    {
        lock (this.lockMutex)
        {
            if (this.currentLock != null)
                throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */);

            this.currentLock = new TransactionLock(this);
            return this.currentLock;
        }
    }

    public void Update(object data, TransactionLock tlock)
    {
        lock (this.lockMutex)
  开发者_JAVA技巧      {
            this.ValidateLock(tlock);

            // ...
        }
    }

    internal void ValidateLock(TransactionLock tlock)
    {
        if (this.currentLock == null)
            throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */);

        if (this.currentLock != tlock)
            throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */);
    }

    internal void Unlock(TransactionLock tlock)
    {
        lock (this.lockMutex)
        {
            this.ValidateLock(tlock);

            this.currentLock = null;
        }
    }
}

And the Dispose(bool) code for the TransactionLock:

private void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
    if (disposing)
    {
        if (this.Transaction != null)
        {
            this.Transaction.Unlock(this);
            this.Transaction = null;
        }
    }
}

---

This was discussed before. Your case is much easier though, you are also implementing the finalizer. That's fundamentally wrong, you are hiding a bug in the client code. Beware that finalizers run on a separate thread. Debugging a consistent deadlock is much easier than dealing with locks that disappear randomly and asynchronously.

Recommendation: follow the .NET framework lead: don't help too much. Microsoft abandoned the Synchronized method for the same reason.

---

How, in the finalizer, do I detect if the parent transaction (this.transaction) has already been finalized?

This is possible by keeping a _disposed boolean field in Transaction and exposing it through an IsDisposed read-only property. This is standard practice.

   ~TransactionLock()
    {
        this.Dispose(false);
    }

Is there a better pattern I should be using?

If it is correct that TransactionLock has no unmanaged resources then just omit the destructor (finalizer). It has no function but it does have a considerable cost.

Edit: If I read correctly, Unlock does not cut the link from TransactionLock to TTransaction, meaning that an old locks Dispose(bool) will be called though the destructor. It's not clear if that is safe.

The question would be a bit more complete with the code of TransactionLock.Dispose(bool)

---

Also, the Transaction class itself needn't be disposable, because it doesn't maintain a reference to the lock, and doesn't care whether or not it is unlocked when it goes to the grave.

From this it follows that when a TransactionLock is collected, it could only be holding a ref to a Transaction that is also being collected. No need to interfere with destructors here, that would not solve anything and could only create problems you don't need.