Search Results

Search found 958 results on 39 pages for 'dispose'.

Page 3/39 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Detecting a Dispose() from an exception inside using block

    - by Augusto Radtke
    I have the following code in my application: using (var database = new Database()) { var poll = // Some database query code. foreach (Question question in poll.Questions) { foreach (Answer answer in question.Answers) { database.Remove(answer); } // This is a sample line that simulate an error. throw new Exception("deu pau"); database.Remove(question); } database.Remove(poll); } This code triggers the Database class Dispose() method as usual, and this method automatically commits the transaction to the database, but this leaves my database in an inconsistent state as the answers are erased but the question and the poll are not. There is any way that I can detect in the Dispose() method that it being called because of an exception instead of regular end of the closing block, so I can automate the rollback? I don´t want to manually add a try ... catch block, my objective is to use the using block as a logical safe transaction manager, so it commits to the database if the execution was clean or rollbacks if any exception occured. Do you have some thoughts on that?

    Read the article

  • Default Button after dispose and setVisible

    - by DaDaDom
    Hi, given the following code: public class DialogTest implements ActionListener { public static void main(String[] args) {DialogTest g = new DialogTest();} public DialogTest() { JButton b1 = new JButton("Button A"); b1.addActionListener(this); JDialog d = new JDialog(); d.setDefaultCloseOperation(JDialog.DISPOSE_ON_CLOSE); JPanel p = new JPanel(); p.add(b1); d.add(p); d.getRootPane().setDefaultButton(b1); d.pack(); d.setVisible(true); d.dispose(); d.pack(); d.setVisible(true); } public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {System.out.println("hello");} } Shouldn't pressing the Enter key write something to the console? According to the docs (http://java.sun.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/awt/Window.html#dispose()): The Window and its subcomponents can be made displayable again by rebuilding the native resources with a subsequent call to pack or show. The states of the recreated Window and its subcomponents will be identical to the states of these objects at the point where the Window was disposed Is this intended behaviour?

    Read the article

  • When to call Dispose in Entity Framework?

    - by Abdel Olakara
    Hi All, In my application I am making use of Spring.Net for IoC. The service objects are called from the ASP.Net files to perform CRUD operations using these service object. For example, I have CustomerService to do all CRUD operations on Customer table. I use entity framework and the entities are injected .. my question is where do I call the dispose method? As far as I understood from the API documentations, unless I call Dispose() there is no guaranty it will be garbage collected! So where and how do I do it? Example Service Class: public class CustomerService { public ecommEntities entities = {get; set;} public bool AddCustomer(Customer customer) { try { entities.AddToCustomer(customer); entities.SaveChanges(); return true; } catch (Exception e) { log.Error("Error occured during creation of new customer: " + e.Message + e.StackTrace); return false; } } public bool UpdateCustomer(Customer customer) { entities.SaveChanges(); return true; } public bool DeleteCustomer(Customer customer) . . . And I just create an object of CustomerService at the ASP partial class and call the necessary methods. Thanks in advance for the best practice and ideas.. Regards, Abdel Raoof

    Read the article

  • How to close a JFrame in the middle of a program

    - by Nick Gibson
    public class JFrameWithPanel extends JFrame implements ActionListener, ItemListener { int packageIndex; double price; double[] prices = {49.99, 39.99, 34.99, 99.99}; DecimalFormat money = new DecimalFormat("$0.00"); JLabel priceLabel = new JLabel("Total Price: "+price); JButton button = new JButton("Check Price"); JComboBox packageChoice = new JComboBox(); JPanel pane = new JPanel(); TextField text = new TextField(5); JButton accept = new JButton("Accept"); JButton decline = new JButton("Decline"); JCheckBox serviceTerms = new JCheckBox("I Agree to the Terms of Service.", false); JTextArea termsOfService = new JTextArea("This is a text area", 5, 10); public JFrameWithPanel() { super("JFrame with Panel"); setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); pane.add(packageChoice); setContentPane(pane); setSize(250,250); setVisible(true); packageChoice.addItem("A+ Certification"); packageChoice.addItem("Network+ Certification "); packageChoice.addItem("Security+ Certifictation"); packageChoice.addItem("CIT Full Test Package"); pane.add(button); button.addActionListener(this); pane.add(text); text.setEditable(false); text.setBackground(Color.WHITE); text.addActionListener(this); pane.add(termsOfService); termsOfService.setEditable(false); termsOfService.setBackground(Color.lightGray); pane.add(serviceTerms); serviceTerms.addItemListener(this); pane.add(accept); accept.addActionListener(this); pane.add(decline); decline.addActionListener(this); } public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { packageIndex = packageChoice.getSelectedIndex(); price = prices[packageIndex]; text.setText("$"+price); Object source = e.getSource(); if(source == accept) { if(serviceTerms.isSelected() == false) { JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"Please accept the terms of service.", "Terms of Service", JOptionPane.ERROR_MESSAGE); } else { JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"Thank you. We will now move on to registering your product."); pane.dispose(); } } else if(source == decline) { System.exit(0); } } public void itemStateChanged(ItemEvent e) { int select = e.getStateChange(); } public static void main(String[] args) { String value1; int constant = 1, invalidNum = 0, answerParse, packNum, packPrice; JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"Hello!"+"\nWelcome to the CIT Test Program."); JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"IT WORKS!"); } }//class How do I get this frame to close so that my JOptionPane Message Dialogs can continue in the program without me exiting the program completely. EDIT: I tried .dispose() but I get this: cannot find symbol symbol : method dispose() location: class javax.swing.JPanel pane.dispose(); ^

    Read the article

  • How to dispose of a NET COM interop object on Release()

    - by mhenry1384
    I have a COM object written in managed code (C++/CLI). I am using that object in standard C++. How do I force my COM object's destructor to be called immediately when the COM object is released? If that's not possible, call I have Release() call a MyDispose() method on my COM object? My code to declare the object (C++/CLI): [Guid("57ED5388-blahblah")] [InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType::InterfaceIsIDispatch)] [ComVisible(true)] public interface class IFoo { void Doit(); }; [Guid("417E5293-blahblah")] [ClassInterface(ClassInterfaceType::None)] [ComVisible(true)] public ref class Foo : IFoo { public: void MyDispose(); ~Foo() {MyDispose();} // This is never called !Foo() {MyDispose();} // This is called by the garbage collector. virtual ULONG Release() {MyDispose();} // This is never called virtual void Doit(); }; My code to use the object (native C++): #import "..\\Debug\\Foo.tlb" ... Bar::IFoo setup(__uuidof(Bar::Foo)); // This object comes from the .tlb. setup.Doit(); setup-Release(); // explicit release, not really necessary since Bar::IFoo's destructor will call Release(). If I put a destructor method on my COM object, it is never called. If I put a finalizer method, it is called when the garbage collector gets around to it. If I explicitly call my Release() override it is never called. I would really like it so that when my native Bar::IFoo object goes out of scope it automatically calls my .NET object's dispose code. I would think I could do it by overriding the Release(), and if the object count = 0 then call MyDispose(). But apparently I'm not overriding Release() correctly because my Release() method is never called. Obviously, I can make this happen by putting my MyDispose() method in the interface and requiring the people using my object to call MyDispose() before Release(), but it would be slicker if Release() just cleaned up the object. Is it possible to force the .NET COM object's destructor, or some other method, to be called immediately when a COM object is released? Googling on this issue gets me a lot of hits telling me to call System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.ReleaseComObject(), but of course, that's how you tell .NET to release a COM object. I want COM Release() to Dispose of a .NET object.

    Read the article

  • How to dispose off custom object from within custom membership provider

    - by IrfanRaza
    I have created my custom MembershipProvider. I have used an instance of the class DBConnect within this provider to handle database functions. Please look at the code below: public class SGIMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider { #region "[ Property Variables ]" private int newPasswordLength = 8; private string connectionString; private string applicationName; private bool enablePasswordReset; private bool enablePasswordRetrieval; private bool requiresQuestionAndAnswer; private bool requiresUniqueEmail; private int maxInvalidPasswordAttempts; private int passwordAttemptWindow; private MembershipPasswordFormat passwordFormat; private int minRequiredNonAlphanumericCharacters; private int minRequiredPasswordLength; private string passwordStrengthRegularExpression; private MachineKeySection machineKey; **private DBConnect dbConn;** #endregion ....... public override bool ChangePassword(string username, string oldPassword, string newPassword) { if (!ValidateUser(username, oldPassword)) return false; ValidatePasswordEventArgs args = new ValidatePasswordEventArgs(username, newPassword, true); OnValidatingPassword(args); if (args.Cancel) { if (args.FailureInformation != null) { throw args.FailureInformation; } else { throw new Exception("Change password canceled due to new password validation failure."); } } SqlParameter[] p = new SqlParameter[3]; p[0] = new SqlParameter("@applicationName", applicationName); p[1] = new SqlParameter("@username", username); p[2] = new SqlParameter("@password", EncodePassword(newPassword)); bool retval = **dbConn.ExecuteSP("User_ChangePassword", p);** return retval; } //ChangePassword public override void Initialize(string name, NameValueCollection config) { if (config == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("config"); } ...... ConnectionStringSettings ConnectionStringSettings = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[config["connectionStringName"]]; if ((ConnectionStringSettings == null) || (ConnectionStringSettings.ConnectionString.Trim() == String.Empty)) { throw new ProviderException("Connection string cannot be blank."); } connectionString = ConnectionStringSettings.ConnectionString; **dbConn = new DBConnect(connectionString); dbConn.ConnectToDB();** ...... } //Initialize ...... } // SGIMembershipProvider I have instantiated dbConn object within Initialize() event. My problem is that how could i dispose off this object when object of SGIMembershipProvider is disposed off. I know the GC will do this all for me, but I need to explicitly dispose off that object. Even I tried to override Finalize() but there is no such overridable method. I have also tried to create destructor for SGIMembershipProvider. Can anyone provide me solution.

    Read the article

  • Dispose a Web Service Proxy class?

    - by Matt
    When you create and use a Web Service proxy class in the ASP.Net framework, the class ultimately inherits from Component, which implements IDisposable. I have never seen one example online where people dispose of a web proxy class, but was wondering if it really needs to be done. When I call only one method, I normally wrap it in a using statement, but if I have a need to call it several times throughout the page, I might end up using the same instance, and just wondered what the ramifications are of not disposing it.

    Read the article

  • Time to ignore IDisposable?

    - by Mystagogue
    Certainly we should call Dipose() on IDisposable objects as soon as we don't need them (which is often merely the scope of a "using" statement). If we don't take that precaution then bad things, from subtle to show-stopping, might happen. But what about "the last moment" before process termination? If your IDisposables have not been explicitly disposed by that point in time, isn't it true that it no longer matters? I ask because unmanaged resources, beneath the CLR, are represented by kernel objects - and the win32 process termination will free all unmanaged resources / kernel objects anyway. Said differently, no resources will remain "leaked" after the process terminates (regardless if Dispose() was called on lingering IDisposables). Can anyone think of a case where process termination would still leave a leaked resource, simply because Dispose() was not explicitly called on one or more IDisposables? Please do not misunderstand this question: I am not trying to justify ignoring IDisposables. The question is just technical-theoretical.

    Read the article

  • MemoryStream, XmlTextWriter and Warning 4 CA2202 : Microsoft.Usage

    - by rasx
    The Run Code Analysis command in Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate returns a warning when seeing a certain pattern with MemoryStream and XmlTextWriter. This is the warning: Warning 7 CA2202 : Microsoft.Usage : Object 'ms' can be disposed more than once in method 'KinteWritePages.GetXPathDocument(DbConnection)'. To avoid generating a System.ObjectDisposedException you should not call Dispose more than one time on an object.: Lines: 421 C:\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\Songhay.DataAccess.KinteWritePages\KinteWritePages.cs 421 Songhay.DataAccess.KinteWritePages This is the form: static XPathDocument GetXPathDocument(DbConnection connection) { XPathDocument xpDoc = null; var ms = new MemoryStream(); try { using(XmlTextWriter writer = new XmlTextWriter(ms, Encoding.UTF8)) { using(DbDataReader reader = CommonReader.GetReader(connection, Resources.KinteRssSql)) { writer.WriteStartDocument(); writer.WriteStartElement("data"); do { while(reader.Read()) { writer.WriteStartElement("item"); for(int i = 0; i < reader.FieldCount; i++) { writer.WriteRaw(String.Format("<{0}>{1}</{0}>", reader.GetName(i), reader[i].ToString())); } writer.WriteFullEndElement(); } } while(reader.NextResult()); writer.WriteFullEndElement(); writer.WriteEndDocument(); writer.Flush(); ms.Position = 0; xpDoc = new XPathDocument(ms); } } } finally { ms.Dispose(); } return xpDoc; } The same kind of warning is produced for this form: XPathDocument xpDoc = null; using(var ms = new MemoryStream()) { using(XmlTextWriter writer = new XmlTextWriter(ms, Encoding.UTF8)) { using(DbDataReader reader = CommonReader.GetReader(connection, Resources.KinteRssSql)) { //... } } } return xpDoc; By the way, the following form produces another warning: XPathDocument xpDoc = null; var ms = new MemoryStream(); using(XmlTextWriter writer = new XmlTextWriter(ms, Encoding.UTF8)) { using(DbDataReader reader = CommonReader.GetReader(connection, Resources.KinteRssSql)) { //... } } return xpDoc; The above produces the warning: Warning 7 CA2000 : Microsoft.Reliability : In method 'KinteWritePages.GetXPathDocument(DbConnection)', object 'ms' is not disposed along all exception paths. Call System.IDisposable.Dispose on object 'ms' before all references to it are out of scope. C:\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\Songhay.DataAccess.KinteWritePages\KinteWritePages.cs 383 Songhay.DataAccess.KinteWritePages In addition to the following, what are my options?: Supress warning CA2202. Supress warning CA2000 and hope that Microsoft is disposing of MemoryStream (because Reflector is not showing me the source code). Rewrite my legacy code to recognize the wonderful XDocument and LINQ to XML.

    Read the article

  • Disposing of Objects with long living dependencies

    - by Ray Booysen
    public class ABC { public ABC(IEventableInstance dependency) { dependency.ANewEvent += MyEventHandler; } private void MyEventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e) { //Do Stuff } } Let us say that an instance of ABC is a long living object and that my dependency is an even longer running object. When an instance of ABC needs to be cleaned up, I have two options. One I could have a Cleanup() method to unsubscribe from the ANewEvent event or I could implement IDisposable and in the Dispose unwire the event. Now I have no control over whether the consumer will call the dispose method or even the Cleanup method should I go that route. Should I implement a Finaliser and unsubscribe then? It feels dirty but I do not want hanging instances of ABC around. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • DI with disposable objects

    - by sunnychaganty
    Suppose my repository class looks like this: class myRepository : IDisposable{ private DataContext _context; public myRepository(DataContext context){ _context = context; } public void Dispose(){ // to do: implement dispose of DataContext } } now, I am using Unity to control the lifetime of my repository & the data context & configured the lifetimes as: DataContext - singleton myRepository - create a new instance each time Does this mean that I should not be implementing the IDisposable on the repository to clean up the DataContext? Any guidance on such items?

    Read the article

  • Why is 'using' improving C# performances

    - by Wernight
    It seems that in most cases the C# compiler could call Dispose() automatically. Like most cases of the using pattern look like: public void SomeMethod() { ... using (var foo = new Foo()) { ... } // Foo isn't use after here (obviously). ... } Since foo isn't used (that's a very simple detection) and since its not provided as argument to another method (that's a supposition that applies to many use cases and can be extended), the compiler could automatically call Dispose() without the developper requiring to do it. This means that in most cases the using is pretty useless if the compiler does some smart job. IDisposable seem low level enough to me to be taken in account by a compiler. Now why isn't this done? Wouldn't that improve the performances (if the developpers are... dirty).

    Read the article

  • WCF "DataContext accessed after Dispose"

    - by David Ward
    I have an application with numerous WCF services that make use of LINQ-To-SQL as the data access model. I am having lots of problems with the "DataContext accessed after Dispose" exception. I understand what this exception is and that it is occurring because I have not "initialised" the data that is trying to be accessed. I've read many articles that suggest that I called ToList() on any arrays before the parent object is returned by the service. My issue is that I am getting this exception and I don't know where it is originating from and therefore I don't know what hasn't been initialised. Can anyone advise how best to identify the root cause? (I have used the MS Service Trace Viewer and this doesn't seem to give me any further information)

    Read the article

  • Cleanup vs Dispose(bool) in MVVM-light

    - by Budda
    In the lastest version of MVVM-light (V3 SP1) both "Dispose()" and "Dipose(bool)" methods in ViewModel class are marked Do not use this method anymore, it will be removed in a future version. Use ICleanup.Cleanup() instead Does this mean that IDisposable interface must not be implemented in all ViewModel classes that are derived from GalaSoft.MvvmLight.ViewModelBase (and cleanup must be overrided)? If yes, using can't be used for view-model instances... Probably I didn't understand something... Please clarify... What are the benefits of such cleaning up? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to dispose data context after usage

    - by Erwin
    Hi fellow programmer I have a member class that returned IQueryable from a data context public static IQueryable<TB_Country> GetCountriesQ() { IQueryable<TB_Country> country; Bn_Master_DataDataContext db = new Bn_Master_DataDataContext(); country = db.TB_Countries .OrderBy(o => o.CountryName); return country; } As you can see I don't delete the data context after usage. Because if I delete it, the code that call this method cannot use the IQueryable (perhaps because of deferred execution?). How to force immediate execution to this method? So I can dispose the data context.. Thank you :D

    Read the article

  • C# - Removing event handlers - FormClosing event or Dispose() method

    - by Andy
    Suppose I have a form opened via the .ShowDialog() method. At some point I attach some event handlers to some controls on the form. e.g. // Attach radio button event handlers. this.rbLevel1.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel2.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel3.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); When the form closes, I need to remove these handlers, right? At present, I am doing this when the FormClosing event is fired. e.g. private void Foo_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e) { // Detach radio button event handlers. this.rbLevel1.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel2.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel3.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); } However, I have seen some examples where handlers are removed in the Dispose() method. Is there a 'best-practice' way of doing this? (Using C#, Winforms, .NET 2.0) Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Should I use IDisposable for purely managed resources?

    - by John Gietzen
    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? 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) { 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; } } }

    Read the article

  • Why should we call SuppressFinalize when we dont have a destructor

    - by somaraj
    I have few Question for which I am not able to get a proper answer . 1) Why should we call SuppressFinalize in the Dispose function when we dont have a destructor . 2) Dispose and finalize are used for freeing resources before the object is garbage collected. Whether it is managed or unmanaged resource we need to free it , then why we need a condition inside the dispose funtion , saying pass 'true' when we call this overriden function from IDisposable:Dispose and pass false when called from a finalize. See the below code i copied from net. class Test : IDisposable { private bool isDisposed = false; ~Test() { Dispose(false); } protected void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (disposing) { // Code to dispose the managed resources of the class } // Code to dispose the un-managed resources of the class isDisposed = true; } public void Dispose() { Dispose(true); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } } what if I remove the boolean protected Dispose function and implement the as below. class Test : IDisposable { private bool isDisposed = false; ~Test() { Dispose(); } public void Dispose() { // Code to dispose the managed resources of the class // Code to dispose the un-managed resources of the class isDisposed = true; // Call this since we have a destructor . what if , if we dont have one GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } }

    Read the article

  • Ninject and DataContext disposal

    - by Bas
    I'm using Ninject to retrieve my DataContext from the kernel and I was wondering if Ninject automatically disposes the DataContext, or how he handles the dispose() behaviour. From own experiences I know disposing the datacontext is pretty important and that whenever you create a direct object of the DataContext (as in: new DataContext()) you should use a using() block. My question thus is: When im retrieving my DataContext from the kernel, should I still have to use a using() block? Or does Ninject fix this for me?

    Read the article

  • disposing a class loader

    - by java_geek
    I am using a custom class loader which extends URLClassLoader. I load some classes into my custom class loader and perform some task. Once the task is completed i want to dispose of the class loader. I tried doing that by setting the reference to null. But this does not garbage collect the class loader. Is there a way that can help what i want to achieve?

    Read the article

  • Why "Finalize method should not reference any other objects" ?

    - by mishal153
    I have been pondering why it is recommended that we should not release managed resources inside finalize. If you see the code example at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.gc.suppressfinalize.aspx , and search for string "Dispose(bool disposing) executes in two distinct scenarios" and read that comment, you will understand what I mean. Only possibility I can think of is that it probably has something to do with the fact that it is not possible to predict when finalizer will get called. Does anyone know the right answer ? thanks, mishal

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between using IDisposable vs a destructor in C#?

    - by j0rd4n
    When would I implement IDispose on a class as opposed to a destructor? I read this article, but I'm still missing the point. My assumption is that if I implement IDispose on an object, I can explicitly 'destruct' it as opposed to waiting for the garbage collector to do it. Is this correct? Does that mean I should always explicitly call Dispose on an object? What are some common examples of this?

    Read the article

  • When and where to call the RemoveHandler in VB.NET?

    - by marco.ragogna
    I am working to a VB.NET windows forms projet in .NET 1.1. And I have this type of architecture, very simplified. Public MustInherit Class BaseTestLogic Private _TimerPoll As Timer Public Sub New(ByVal sym As SymbolFileMng, ByVal cfg As LampTestConfig, ByVal daas As DaasManager, ByVal mcf As Elux.Wg.Lpd.MCFs.VMCF) AddHandler _TimerPoll.Tick, AddressOf TimerPoll_Tick End Sub End Class Public Class SpecificTestLogic Inherits BaseTestLogic End Class Depending of the type of test I am doing I create an instance of a specific test derived from BaseTestLogic. But I found that after hundreds of object creations I can have StackOverflow exception. I checked my code and saw that I forgot to remove the handler to Timer Tick. The question is, where and when is it correct to remove hadler? Do I need to implement the IDisposable interface in the base class and RemoveHandler in Dispose?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >