Memory Leak? - DOTNET

This is a common question, you can google many answers to:
http://tech-geeks.org/tiny.php?url=2573

or original URL (watch for wrapping):
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...net.*&safe=off

--
C#, .NET and Complex Adaptive Systems:
http://blogs.geekdojo.net/Richard
"Robert Reineri" <robert123@fnbmarin.com> wrote in message
news:u8hWDpq7EHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello All,
>
> I have a simple little prototype application that seems to be consuming
> resources and memory, and when the application stops processing, no
> cleanup
> seems to occur. Basically, what happens is this:
>
> 1. A data file is created in a directory, and a FileSystemWatcher fires an
> event that I catch.
> 2. In the event handler, I use the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem to process
> the file. The file is XML, with a bunch of records in it. Basically, I
> scan through the file and process each record.
> 3. The thread finishes processing the file. At this point, it is a
> prototype, so all the thread is really doing is creating one object for
> each
> record in
> the file. The object has a bunch of properties, each one representing
> the value of an element in the a single XML record. So if there are
> 100 "Items" in the Xml file, there will be 100 objects created. No
> reference is being held to these objects. They are simple newed up nd
> loaded
> with the parsed data.
>
> I hold no references to the thread in my main application, yet everytime I
> drop another file in the directory to start the processing, the memory
> usage
> continues to grow, and is never released. I am making sure to explicitly
> release all object references, there are no circular references that I can
> find.I am closing all files.
>
> When a thread is finished processing, doesn't it "go away" and return to
> the
> thread pool? At this point, I would think any objects it had created would
> be garbage collected as well.
>
> Sorry if this is a newbie topic, but I'm rather new to multithreading, and
> would like to do this right. I hope my description above is clear enough.
>
> Please respond via newsgroup. Thanks for any help in advance.
>
> Robert
>
>