Comments on: Channels 102b: Close vs. Abort (vs. Dispose) http://kennyw.com/indigo/22 Kenny Wolf's Thoughts of the Moment Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:55:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Kenny http://kennyw.com/indigo/22#comment-32 Kenny Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:47:44 +0000 http://kennyw.com/indigo/22#comment-32 Yes, I agree it's a little ugly. We are considering adding an Aborted state in order to be explicit. Stay tuned. Yes, I agree it’s a little ugly. We are considering adding an Aborted state in order to be explicit. Stay tuned.

]]> By: Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] http://kennyw.com/indigo/22#comment-20 Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] Fri, 20 May 2005 20:59:49 +0000 http://kennyw.com/indigo/22#comment-20 This is a little ugly, IMO, as I would like to have the ability to leverage the using statement to close down gracefully. However, I understand why you can't have it do both. In the end, I'll end up writing a structure which will call close properly if the CommunicationState value is not closed. But, in order to do this, it would be nice if there was an Aborted value in the CommunicationState enumeration. This is a little ugly, IMO, as I would like to have the ability to leverage the using statement to close down gracefully.

However, I understand why you can’t have it do both. In the end, I’ll end up writing a structure which will call close properly if the CommunicationState value is not closed.

But, in order to do this, it would be nice if there was an Aborted value in the CommunicationState enumeration.

]]>