正如其他人所说，如果类实现了IDisposable，则肯定需要调用Dispose。我在这个问题上的立场相当坚定。例如，有些人可能会声称在DataSet上调用Dispose是没有意义的，因为他们分解了DataSet，发现它没有做任何有意义的事情。但是，我认为这种说法有很多谬误。

阅读这篇文章，你会看到一场由受人尊敬的人就这个问题展开的有趣辩论。然后阅读我的推理，为什么我认为杰弗里·里希特站在错误的阵营。

现在，关于是否应该将引用设置为null。答案是否定的。让我用下面的代码来说明我的观点。

public static void Main()
{
  Object a = new Object();
  Console.WriteLine("object created");
  DoSomething(a);
  Console.WriteLine("object used");
  a = null;
  Console.WriteLine("reference set to null");
}

So when do you think the object referenced by a is eligible for collection? If you said after the call to a = null then you are wrong. If you said after the Main method completes then you are also wrong. The correct answer is that it is eligible for collection sometime during the call to DoSomething. That is right. It is eligible before the reference is set to null and perhaps even before the call to DoSomething completes. That is because the JIT compiler can recognize when object references are no longer dereferenced even if they are still rooted.

如果它们实现了IDisposable接口，那么你应该释放它们。垃圾收集器会处理剩下的事情。

EDIT:处理一次性物品时最好使用using命令:

using(var con = new SqlConnection("..")){ ...

正如其他人所说，如果类实现了IDisposable，则肯定需要调用Dispose。我在这个问题上的立场相当坚定。例如，有些人可能会声称在DataSet上调用Dispose是没有意义的，因为他们分解了DataSet，发现它没有做任何有意义的事情。但是，我认为这种说法有很多谬误。

阅读这篇文章，你会看到一场由受人尊敬的人就这个问题展开的有趣辩论。然后阅读我的推理，为什么我认为杰弗里·里希特站在错误的阵营。

现在，关于是否应该将引用设置为null。答案是否定的。让我用下面的代码来说明我的观点。

public static void Main()
{
  Object a = new Object();
  Console.WriteLine("object created");
  DoSomething(a);
  Console.WriteLine("object used");
  a = null;
  Console.WriteLine("reference set to null");
}

So when do you think the object referenced by a is eligible for collection? If you said after the call to a = null then you are wrong. If you said after the Main method completes then you are also wrong. The correct answer is that it is eligible for collection sometime during the call to DoSomething. That is right. It is eligible before the reference is set to null and perhaps even before the call to DoSomething completes. That is because the JIT compiler can recognize when object references are no longer dereferenced even if they are still rooted.

A little late to the party, but there is one scenario that I don't think has been mentioned here - if class A implements IDisposable, and exposes public properties that are also IDisposable objects, then I think it's good practice for class A not only to dispose of the disposable objects that it has created in its Dispose method, but also to set them to null. The reason for this is that disposing an object and letting it get GCed (because there are no more references to it) are by no means the same thing, although it is pretty definitely a bug if it happens. If a client of Class A does dispose its object of type ClassA, the object still exists. If the client then tries to access one of these public properties (which have also now been disposed) the results can be quite unexpected. If they have been nulled as well as disposed, there will be a null reference exception immediately, which will make the problem easier to diagnose.

当对象不再被使用并且垃圾回收器认为合适时，对象将被清理。有时，您可能需要将一个对象设置为null以使其超出作用域(例如您不再需要其值的静态字段)，但总体而言，通常不需要将其设置为null。

关于处置对象，我同意@Andre的观点。如果对象是IDisposable的，那么在不再需要它时释放它是个好主意，特别是当对象使用非托管资源时。不处理非托管资源将导致内存泄漏。

一旦程序离开using语句的作用域，就可以使用using语句自动处理对象。

using (MyIDisposableObject obj = new MyIDisposableObject())
{
    // use the object here
} // the object is disposed here

其功能等价于:

MyIDisposableObject obj;
try
{
    obj = new MyIDisposableObject();
}
finally
{
    if (obj != null)
    {
        ((IDisposable)obj).Dispose();
    }
}

我同意这里常见的答案，是的，你应该处理，不，你通常不应该设置变量为null…但是我想指出dispose主要不是关于内存管理的。是的，它可以帮助内存管理(有时确实如此)，但它的主要目的是让您确定地释放稀缺资源。

For example, if you open a hardware port (serial for example), a TCP/IP socket, a file (in exclusive access mode) or even a database connection you have now prevented any other code from using those items until they are released. Dispose generally releases these items (along with GDI and other "os" handles etc. which there are 1000's of available, but are still limited overall). If you don't call dipose on the owner object and explicitly release these resources, then try to open the same resource again in the future (or another program does) that open attempt will fail because your undisposed, uncollected object still has the item open. Of course, when the GC collects the item (if the Dispose pattern has been implemented correctly) the resource will get released... but you don't know when that will be, so you don't know when it's safe to re-open that resource. This is the primary issue Dispose works around. Of course, releasing these handles often releases memory too, and never releasing them may never release that memory... hence all the talk about memory leaks, or delays in memory clean up.

I have seen real world examples of this causing problems. For instance, I have seen ASP.Net web applications that eventually fail to connect to the database (albeit for short periods of time, or until the web server process is restarted) because the sql server 'connection pool is full'... i.e, so many connections have been created and not explicitly released in so short a period of time that no new connections can be created and many of the connections in the pool, although not active, are still referenced by undiposed and uncollected objects and so can't be reused. Correctly disposing the database connections where necessary ensures this problem doesn't happen (at least not unless you have very high concurrent access).