views:

1062

answers:

8

I've been running into some problems concerning a SqlTransaction I'm using in my code. During my Googling I see many people using a using statement with a SqlTransaction.

What is the benefit and/or difference of using this type of statement with a SqlTransaction?

using (SqlConnection cn = new SqlConnection())
{
     using (SqlTransaction tr = cn.BeginTransaction())
     {
      //some code
      tr.Commit();
     }
}

Currently my code looks like this:

SqlConnection cn = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["T3"]);
cn.Open();
SqlTransaction tr = cn.BeginTransaction();

try
{
     //some code
     tr.Commit();
     cn.Close();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
      tr.Rollback();
      cn.Close();
      throw ex;
}

What is the advantage of one way over the other?

+11  A: 

A using statement should be used every time you create an instance of a class that implements IDisposable within the scope of a block. It ensures that the Dispose method will be called on that instance, whether or not an exception is thrown.

In particular, your code only catches managed exceptions, then destroys the stack frame by throwing a new exception instead of rethrowing the existing one.

The correct way to do it is:

using (SqlConnection cn = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["T3"])) {
    cn.Open();
    using (SqlTransaction tr = cn.BeginTransaction()) {
        //some code
        tr.Commit();
    }
}

Note that if your class has instance members of types that implement IDisposable, then your class must implement IDisposable itself, and dispose of those members during its own Dispose call.

John Saunders
....because it guarantees that the "Dispose" method of the IDisposble interface being implemented will be called - no matter what happens in your code.
marc_s
+1, generally correct, but you can't _always_ use a using statement, sometimes you need to implement IDisposable yourself. I would say: "Whenever possible", which means "whenever creating an IDisposable instance used only within a bloc" or something like this.
Stefan Steinegger
Yeah, yeah. :-)
John Saunders
That makes sense. I've also corrected my exception. Thanks for pointing that out.
MDStephens
@Downvoter: Care to say why? otherwise you're pretty irrelevant.
John Saunders
+1  A: 

If you don't use a using() block, you'll have to explicitly call the .Dispose() method of the SqlConnection and SqlTransaction objects. If you fail to do that, then unmanaged resources will not be released and could cause memory leaks or other problems.

mgroves
Would not cause memory leaks, but it might cause resource leaks.
Joel Coehoorn
+1  A: 

The reason for this is that the SqlTransaction object will roll back in its Dispose() method if it was not explicitly committed (e.g. if an exception is thrown). In other words, it has the same effect as your code, just a little bit cleaner.

Ken Keenan
+3  A: 

The using statement is closing and disposing your connection and transaction for you. It's the equivalent of having a finally block on your try/catch that does the dispose.

You could also condense the using blocks down a bit like this...

using (SqlConnection cn = new SqlConnection())
using (SqlTransaction tr = cn.BeginTransaction())     
{
      //some code
      tr.Commit();
}

which would be roughly the same as:

SqlConnection cn = null;
SqlTransaction tr = null;
try
{
    cn = new SqlConnection());
    tr = cn.BeginTransaction());

    //some code
    tr.Commit();
}
finally
{
    if (cn != null)
        cn.Dispose();
    if (tr != null)    
        tr.Dispose();
}
Scott Ivey
Very close, but there's also an additional anonymous scope block in there. The code as you have it won't compile, because cn and tr are out of scope in the finally block.
Joel Coehoorn
ahh, right - good catch. i'll update the example.
Scott Ivey
A: 

The Using statement is shorthand for properly handling a resource. You can find more information at MSDN article on Using statement

pdwetz
+2  A: 

In the end, using is just a shortcut for a pattern. But it's a very useful and helpful shortcut, because it makes sure you implement the pattern correctly and means you can do it with less code.

In this case, you haven't implemented the pattern correctly. What happens in your code if the call to tr.RollBack() also throws an exception?

Joel Coehoorn
+4  A: 

Essentially the using does the same thing that you are doing, except int a finally block instead of catching all exceptions:

using (SqlConnection cn = new SqlConnection())
{
     using (SqlTransaction tr = cn.BeginTransaction())
     {
      //some code
      tr.Commit();
     }
}

is the same as, just much less code :)

{
    SqlConnection cn = null;
    try
    {
       cn = new SqlConnection();
       {
           SqlTransaction tr = null;
           try
           {
               tr = cn.BeginTransaction())

               //some code
               tr.Commit();
            }
            finally
            {
                if(tr != null && tr is IDisposable)
                {
                    tr.Dispose();
                }
            }
        }
    }
    finally
    {
        if(cn != null && cn is IDisposable)
        {
            cn.Dispose();
        }
    }
}
heavyd
You actually have an extra set of braces in your first example: you can nest using statements without creating a new block, e.g. `using (x = new X) using (y = new Y) { }`
Robert Rossney
Just being explicit, same reason we always put braces around all our if statements, even if they're one-liners
heavyd
A: 

Using using gurantees that your connection object will be disposed after the code returns. Dispose is useful to release unmanages resources, As a good practice, if an object implements IDisposable, dispose method always should be called

jyotishka bora
Connection - and the SqlTransaction object.
John Saunders