Rick,

Anytime you AddObject() the added thing will normally get automatically removed when the container it was added to is destroyed. An external reference to the object added though will prevent the container from destructing:

x = createobejct( "myobejct" )
x.AddObject( "oSomething", "Something" )
y = x.oSomething
x = .null. && or x = '' or x = .f. any reassignment of x would destruct it

except that y holds a reference to a contained object of x so the object itself won't destruct, x will null out properly though. The object won't finish destructing until you:

y = .null.

One of the COM servers I've written in VFP is instantiated and called from a VC++ program. It's possible your memory leak is there in the VC++ to VFP code. We are using the Class Wizard to import the .TLB, but modifying the generated VC++ code because the VFP5 .TLBs are basically wrong (they work fine in VFP6). We call the VFP methods using the InvokeHelper() function.

>This is really crazy. I tried your sample and it worked exactly as you say it does. NO MEMORY LOSS. I then mess with it a bit to make it more like the app I have trouble with. 1) I create a custom class from my class library and then .null. it out. Still NO MEMORY LOSS. 2) Then I AddObject() to the custom class, RemoveObject() and set custom class to .null. STILL NO MEMORY LOSS. 3) Now I really try to break it. I do some of the things that I originally thought left me with dangling references -- :
>
>x=CREATEOBJECT('myObject')
>x.AddObject('oSomething','Something')
>x=.null.
>
>NO MEMORY LOSS
>
>x=CREATEOBJECT('myObject')
>x.AddObject('oSomething','Something')
>x=''
>
>NO MEMORY LOSS.
>
>I have not tried yet to play around with method calls from within these objects, but I SWEAR there are no dangling object references in there. The other thing that is a bit different is that my app is a COM object instantiated from another application written in VC++.