Vista - When does a class isntance get destroyed?

Question about when an class instance get destroyed. I have a class
called ArgList that I use to pass arguments to another thread.
See code below. Sub A creates the new instance of the class
and sets the values. The class is then passed to the new
thread called GetWeight. GetWeight then uses the the values
passed to it. My question is the following. After the thread
is created in Sub A, Sub A will exit. What happens to the class
instance when Sub A exits? If the class object will be deleted
then is it possible that Sub GetWeight will not be able to
reference the values passed to it? Thanks.

John

Public Class ArgList
Public iPort As Integer
Public bWeightIntFlg As Boolean
End Class

Sub A()
Dim TArgs As New ArgList
TArgs.iPort = 1
TArgs.bWeightIntFlg = True
Dim ThreadT As New Thread(AddressOf GetWeight)
ThreadT.Start(TArgs)
End Sub

Sub GetWeight(obj As Object)
Dim Args As ArgList = DirectCast(obj, ArgList)
Dim iPort as Integer, Weight as Single
IF Args.iPort = 1 Then
<Do some work>
'now use the flag to see if weight is
'integer or floating point
If Args.bWeightIntFlg then
Weight = CInt(WeightStr)
Else
Weight = Csng(WeightStr)
End If
End If
End Sub

The class will stay instantiated as long as there is a reference to it.
Since a reference is created in GetWeight, the class will remain until
GetWeight is completed.

"John Peterson" <nospam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.24c9948464f695e0989685@xxxxxx

Just an extra FYI. Technically, the instance will stay in memory until it
is Garbage Collected, which may or may not happen in a timely manner. It
will no longer be available for use when GetWeight completes.


"SyntaxError" <visit@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9C53A468-B234-4BD8-B824-00D44F4F5906@xxxxxx

John Peterson <nospam@xxxxxx> wrote in news:MPG.24c9948464f695e0989685
@news.giganews.com:
From a practical standpoint, when code execution falls out of the routine
that instantiated the object the object is no longer available for your
use. The actual memory will not be cleared until later, but without jumping
through hoops (if it is even possible to still reference the object with
some seriously complex code), you cannot access them.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

Twitter: @gbworld
Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

******************************************
| Think outside the box! |
******************************************

"Gregory A. Beamer" <NoSpamMgbworld@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9C4D5AA8BECD3gbworldcomcastnet@xxxxxxWell, not necessarially. If a reference to the object is passed to a
different routine, the first routine could, in fact complete without the
object becomming unavailable, as is the case here. Objects become elligible
for collection (and thus unavailable to code) when they have no more
reference paths from the application.

-Scott

"Scott M." <s-mar@xxxxxx> wrote in
news:Owe8ZkICKHA.1380@xxxxxx:
I probably should have qualified that more, as I made an assumption that
we were talking something like this:

public void Routine1()
{
MyClass c = new MyClass();
}


In this, the class is effectively MIA when you exit the routine. if you
code something globally, or pass to a routine, all bets are off. ;-)

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

Twitter: @gbworld
Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

*******************************************
| Think outside the box! |
*******************************************