If I write the following code:
public void Execute()
{
var stream = new MemoryStream();
...
}
then code analysis will flag this as:
Warning 1 CA2000 : Microsoft.Reliability : In method 'ServiceUser.Execute()', call System.IDisposable.Dispose on object 'stream' before all references to it are out of scope. C:\Dev\VS.NET\DisposeTest\DisposeTest\ServiceUser.cs 14 DisposeTest
However, if I create a factory pattern, I still might be required to dispose of the object, but now FxCop/Code Analysis doesn't complain. Rather, it complains about the factory method, not the code that calls it. (I think I had an example that did complain about the factory method, but the one I post here doesn't, so I struck that out)
Is there a way, for instance using attributes, to move the responsibility of the IDisposable object out of the factory method and onto the caller instead?
Take this code:
public class ServiceUser
{
public void Execute()
{
var stream = StreamFactory.GetStream();
Debug.WriteLine(stream.Length);
}
}
public static class StreamFactory
{
public static Stream GetStream()
{
return new MemoryStream();
}
}
In this case, there are no warnings. I'd like FxCOP/CA to still complain about my original method. It is still my responsibility to handle that object.
Is there any way I can tell FxCOP/CA about this? For instance, I recently ventured into the annotation attributes that ReSharper has provided, in order to tell its analysis engine information it would otherwise not be able to understand.
So I envision something like this:
public static class StreamFactory
{
[return: CallerResponsibility]
public static Stream GetStream()
{
return new MemoryStream();
}
}
Or is this design way off?
