We Keep Coding

Item enqueue in concurrent queue is not adding

I am working on an application in which I am getting orders from an third party app. The application is written on windows form so I am using service stack to add routes in my application.
I have three classes. One contains endpoint
public class Service : ServiceStack.Service
{
Repository _repository;
public OrderService()
{
_repository = Repository.GetInstance();
}
[Authenticate]
public void Post(Order order)
{
if (order != null)
{
_repository.AddItem(order);
}
}
}
The second class is processing the orders and this class is a singleton class.
public sealed class Repository
{
private static object _myLock = new object();
private static Repository _mySingleton = null;
private ConcurrentQueue<Order> _queue;
public static bool orderCheck = true;
private Repository() {
_queue = new ConcurrentQueue<Order>();
}
public void AddItem(Order order)
{
_queue.Enqueue(order);
}
public static Repository GetInstance()
{
if (_mySingleton == null)
{
lock (_myLock)
{
if (_mySingleton == null)
{
_mySingleton = new Repository();
}
}
}
return _mySingleton;
}
public void CreateOrder()
{
while (orderCheck)
{
Order order = null;
_queue.TryDequeue(out order);
if (order != null)
{
try
{
// performing business logic with order
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception(ex.Message);
}
}
else
{
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
}
}
}
The third class creates a new thread when the application is started:
new Thread(delegate ()
{
var repo = Repository.GetInstance();
repo.CreateOrder();
}).Start();
The problem is that the endpoint added the order information in the queue, but when I try to dequeue in the Repository class then it's not available on the tryDequeue method.
I put the getHashCode of ConcurrentQueue and I found the hashcode showing differently in while loop and in AddItem method.

Lock over multiple methods

i have a singleton class (MySingletonClass) that has three main methods
BeginTransaction(clientId)
AddItem(item, clientId)
CommitTransaction(clientId)
The ClientClass is:
public class ClientClass
{
private string id;
private MySingletonClass s = MySingletonClass.Instance;
public ClientClass()
{
id = new Guid().ToString();
}
public void BeginTransaction()
{
//start a lock here
s.BeginTransaction(id);
}
public void CommitTransaction()
{
s.CommitTransaction(id);
//end lock here
}
public void AddItem(string item)
{
//no access until lock is released
s.AddItem(item, id);
}
}
There are many task each of which with its own ClientClass class
I need a way to serialize access to singleton class by transaction:
if a transaction has not been committed then no other thread should start a new transaction or calla any other method on the singleton instance
For example every task can have code like this
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Client c = new ClientClass();
c.BeginTransaction();
c.AddItem("www");
c.AddItem("qqq");
c.CommitTransaction();
});
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Client c1 = new ClientClass();
c1.BeginTransaction();
c1.AddItem("aaa");
c1.CommitTransaction();
});
Any idea how can i archieve this with some sort of locking that starts on begin transaction and is released on commit?
All the examples i've seen of monitor , mutex and lock start and are released in the same method.
Is there a lock over multiple methods??

Your MySingletonClass could look something like this:
public class MySingletonClass {
private readonly Object _lockObject = new object();
private List<string> _list = new List<string>();
public void BeginTransaction()
{
Monitor.Enter(_lockObject);
_list.Clear();
}
public void AddItem(string item)
{
if( Monitor.IsEntered(_lockObject) == false ) throw new ThreadStateException("Not owner of transaction");
_list.Add(item);
}
public void CommitTransaction()
{
if( Monitor.IsEntered(_lockObject) == false ) throw new ThreadStateException("Not owner of transaction");
Monitor.Exit(_lockObject);
}
public void RollbackTransaction()
{
if( Monitor.IsEntered(_lockObject) == false ) throw new ThreadStateException("Not owner of transaction");
Monitor.Exit(_lockObject);
}
}
But if a ClientClass fails (exception being thrown) between BeginTransaction and CommitTransaction, it very important to call RollbackTransaction else all threads will deadlock since the monitor is never freed.
So it is not a recommendable solution.

Need help tweaking c# multi-threaded routine

I've created a windows service which runs a multi-threaded routine on a machine with 24 cores, 48 virtual, using Parallel.ForEach. This service, which has been running great in a production environment, bulk copies data into an SQL Server database. Currently it does this very well, around 6000 inserts per second, but I believe it can be tweaked. Below is part of the code I am using; there's an example of current functionality and proposed changes for tweaking. As can be seen from the code, currently a lock is taken for every call to Add, which I believe makes the Parallel.ForEach somewhat non-parallel. So I'm looking for a "fix"; and hoping my new method, also defined in the code, would do the trick.
public class MainLoop
{
public void DoWork()
{
var options = new ParallelOptions
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount * 2
};
var workQueueManager = new ObjWorkQueueManager(queueSize: 1000);
// ignore the fact that this while loop would be a never ending loop,
// there's other logic not shown here that exits the loop!
while (true)
{
ICollection<object> work = GetWork();
Parallel.ForEach(work, options, (item) =>
{
workQueueManager.AddOLD(item);
});
}
}
private ICollection<object> GetWork()
{
// return list of work from some arbitrary source
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class ObjWorkQueueManager
{
private readonly int _queueSize;
private ObjDataReader _queueDataHandler;
private readonly object _sync;
public ObjWorkQueueManager(int queueSize)
{
_queueSize = queueSize;
_queueDataHandler = new ObjDataReader(queueSize);
_sync = new object();
}
// current Add method works great, but blocks with EVERY call
public void AddOLD(object value)
{
lock (_sync)
{
if (_queueDataHandler.Add(value) == _queueSize)
{
// create a new thread to handle copying the queued data to repository
Thread t = new Thread(SaveQueuedData);
t.Start(_queueDataHandler);
// start a new queue
_queueDataHandler = new ObjDataReader(_queueSize);
}
}
}
// hoping for a new Add method to work better by blocking only
// every nth call where n = _queueSize
public void AddNEW(object value)
{
int queued;
if ((queued = _queueDataHandler.Add(value)) >= _queueSize)
{
lock (_sync)
{
if (queued == _queueSize)
{
Thread t = new Thread(SaveQueuedData);
t.Start(_queueDataHandler);
}
}
}
else if (queued == 0)
{
lock (_sync)
{
_queueDataHandler = new ObjDataReader(_queueSize);
AddNEW(value);
}
}
}
// this method will Bulk Copy data into an SQL DB
private void SaveQueuedData(object o)
{
// do something with o as ObjDataReader
}
}
// implements IDataReader, Read method of IDataReader dequeues from _innerQueue
public class ObjDataReader
{
private readonly int _capacity;
private Queue<object> _innerQueue;
public ObjDataReader(int capacity)
{
_capacity = capacity;
_innerQueue = new Queue<object>(capacity);
}
public int Add(object value)
{
if (_innerQueue.Count < _capacity)
{
_innerQueue.Enqueue(value);
return _innerQueue.Count;
}
return 0;
}
}

Pattern for 'routing' events through several subscribers?

I have a group of classes with the following interface:
public interface RoutedEventReceiver<T>
{
IDisposable Apply(IObservable<T> stream);
bool ShouldForwardEvent(T anEvent);
}
What I would like to do is to maintain a stack of these classes, with each event being filtered through the ShouldForwardEvent(T) predicate, and the resulting IObservable<T> passed to the next receiver. I also want to be able to push and pop new receivers while my program is running (at some point I may want to move from a stack to some other collection but for now a stack is sufficient).
What I have currently does work, but I don't feel like it is very "Rx". I am sure there must be a way to do what I want without all this imperative logic:
private void Refresh()
{
// _subscriptions is a list of previous subscriptions
foreach (var subscription in _subscriptions)
subscription.Dispose();
_subscriptions.Clear();
// _stream is my stream of incoming events
if (_stream != null)
{
var stream = _stream;
foreach (var eventReceiver in _eventReceivers)
{
// add the subscription so it can be disposed next Refresh()
_subscriptions.Add(eventReceiver.Apply(stream));
// filter the stream for the next event receiver
stream = stream.Where(eventReceiver.ShouldForwardEvent);
}
}
}
The above method is called whenever I Push or Pop on the stack.
Is there a cleaner, more functional way to express the above intent? I have tried .Publish() but with little success - perhaps I don't know it well enough.

I have managed to make the Publish approach work, but it doesn't afford me much other than getting rid of the need to keep a list of IDisposables:
private void Refresh()
{
_published.DisposeIfNotNull();
if (_stream != null)
{
var connectable = _stream.Publish();
_published = connectable.Connect();
var stream = connectable.AsObservable();
foreach (var eventReceiver in _eventReceivers)
{
eventReceiver.Apply(stream);
stream = stream.Where(eventReceiver.ShouldForwardEvent);
}
}
}

The class below (named CORStack for Chain Of Responsibility* Stack), tries to do what you're after. Internally it adds an ShouldHandle bool to the stream and uses this to determine whether to process. It exposes the standard Push, Pop, and Peek methods.
public sealed class CORStack<T>
{
Stack<StackFrame> _handlers;
public CORStack(IObservable<T> source)
{
_handlers = new Stack<StackFrame>();
_handlers.Push(new StackFrame(
source.Select(t => new ShouldHandleWrapper(t, true)),
new Handler<T>(new Action<T>(t => { }), true)));
}
public void Push(Handler<T> handler)
{
_handlers.Push(new StackFrame(_handlers.Peek().Observable, handler));
}
public Handler<T> Peek()
{
return _handlers.Peek().Handler;
}
public Handler<T> Pop()
{
var frame = _handlers.Pop();
frame.Dispose();
return frame.Handler;
}
class StackFrame : IDisposable
{
IDisposable _unsub;
public IObservable<ShouldHandleWrapper> Observable { get; private set; }
public Handler<T> Handler { get; private set; }
public StackFrame(IObservable<ShouldHandleWrapper> topOfStack, Handler<T> handler)
{
_unsub = topOfStack.Subscribe(shouldHandle =>
{
if (shouldHandle.ShouldHandle)
handler.Action.Invoke(shouldHandle.Value);
});
Observable = topOfStack.Select(shouldHandle =>
new ShouldHandleWrapper(shouldHandle.Value, shouldHandle.ShouldHandle && handler.Forward));
Handler = handler;
}
public void Dispose()
{
_unsub.Dispose();
}
}
class ShouldHandleWrapper
{
public readonly T Value;
public readonly bool ShouldHandle;
public ShouldHandleWrapper(T value, bool shouldHandle)
{
Value = value;
ShouldHandle = shouldHandle;
}
}
}
public class Handler<T>
{
public Action<T> Action { get; set; }
public bool Forward { get; set; }
public Handler(Action<T> action, bool forward)
{
Action = action;
Forward = forward;
}
}
*I realised that it's not a chain of responsibility, but can't think of a better name atm.

This is a case where I'd actually use Subjects. Create a subject for each handler, then subscribe to the stream and loop through the handlers passing the event as required. This avoids continually unsubscribing/resubscribing to the stream (and thus the Refresh method), which is not always appropriate. We use lock to guard against a new receiver being added or removed at the same moment as a new value is coming through the stream. If you can guarantee that cannot happen, then you can remove the lock statements.
public class YourClass<T> : IDisposable
{
private readonly Stack<Tuple<Subject<T>, RoutedEventReceiver<T>, IDisposable> _handlers;
private readonly IObservable<T> _stream;
private readonly IDisposable _streamSubscription;
public YourClass(IObservable<T> stream)
{
_handlers = new Stack<Tuple<Subject<T>, RoutedEventReceiver<T>, IDisposable>();
_stream = stream;
_streamSubscription = stream.Subscribe(OnNext, OnError, OnCompleted);
}
public void Dispose()
{
_streamSubscription.Dispose();
lock (_handlers)
{
foreach (var h in _handlers)
{
h.Item3.Dispose();
h.Item1.Dispose();
}
_handlers.Clear();
}
}
private void OnNext(T value)
{
lock (_handlers)
{
for (var h in _handlers)
{
h.Item1.OnNext(value);
if (!h.Item2.ShouldForwardEvent(value)) break;
}
}
}
private void OnError(Exception e)
{
lock (_handlers)
{
for (var h in _handlers) { h.Item1.OnError(e); }
}
}
private void OnCompleted()
{
lock (_handlers)
{
for (var h in _handlers) { h.Item1.OnCompleted(); }
}
}
public void Push(RoutedEventReceiver<T> handler)
{
lock (_handlers)
{
var subject = new Subject<T>;
_handlers.Push(Tuple.Create(subject, handler, handler.Apply(subject)));
}
}
public RoutedEventReceiver<T> Pop()
{
lock (_handlers)
{
var handler = _handlers.Pop();
handler.Item3.Dispose();
handler.Item1.Dispose();
return handler.Item2;
}
}
}

Multithreading BlockingCollection Alternatives to GetConsumingEnumerable() Producer-Consumer

I have a situation where I have multiple producers and multiple consumers. The producers enters a job into a queue. I chose the BlockingCollection and it works great since I need the consumers to wait for a job to be found. However, if I use the GetConsumingEnumerable() feature the order of the items in the collection change... this is not what I need.
It even says in MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd287186.aspx
that it does not preserve the order of the items.
Does anyone know an alternative for this situation?
I see that the Take method is available but does it also provide a 'wait' condition for the consumer threads?
It says http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd287085.aspx
'A call to Take may block until an item is available to be removed.' Is it better to use TryTake? I really need the thread to wait and keep checking for a job.

Take blocks the thread till something comes available.
TryTake as the name implies tries to do so but returns a bool if it fails or succeeds.
Allowing for more flex using it:
while(goingOn){
if( q.TryTake(out var){
Process(var)
}
else{
DoSomething_Usefull_OrNotUseFull_OrEvenSleep();
}
}
instead of
while(goingOn){
if( var x = q.Take(){
//w'll wait till this ever will happen and then we:
Process(var)
}
}
My votes are for TryTake :-)
EXAMPLE:
public class ProducerConsumer<T> {
public struct Message {
public T Data;
}
private readonly ThreadRunner _producer;
private readonly ThreadRunner _consumer;
public ProducerConsumer(Func<T> produce, Action<T> consume) {
var q = new BlockingCollection<Message>();
_producer = new Producer(produce,q);
_consumer = new Consumer(consume,q);
}
public void Start() {
_producer.Run();
_consumer.Run();
}
public void Stop() {
_producer.Stop();
_consumer.Stop();
}
private class Producer : ThreadRunner {
public Producer(Func<T> produce, BlockingCollection<Message> q) : base(q) {
_produce = produce;
}
private readonly Func<T> _produce;
public override void Worker() {
try {
while (KeepRunning) {
var item = _produce();
MessageQ.TryAdd(new Message{Data = item});
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException) {
WasInterrupted = true;
}
}
}
public abstract class ThreadRunner {
protected readonly BlockingCollection<Message> MessageQ;
protected ThreadRunner(BlockingCollection<Message> q) {
MessageQ = q;
}
protected Thread Runner;
protected bool KeepRunning = true;
public bool WasInterrupted;
public abstract void Worker();
public void Run() {
Runner = new Thread(Worker);
Runner.Start();
}
public void Stop() {
KeepRunning = false;
Runner.Interrupt();
Runner.Join();
}
}
class Consumer : ThreadRunner {
private readonly Action<T> _consume;
public Consumer(Action<T> consume,BlockingCollection<Message> q) : base(q) {
_consume = consume;
}
public override void Worker() {
try {
while (KeepRunning) {
Message message;
if (MessageQ.TryTake(out message, TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100))) {
_consume(message.Data);
}
else {
//There's nothing in the Q so I have some spare time...
//Excellent moment to update my statisics or update some history to logfiles
//for now we sleep:
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
}
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException) {
WasInterrupted = true;
}
}
}
}
}
USAGE:
[Fact]
public void ConsumerShouldConsume() {
var produced = 0;
var consumed = 0;
Func<int> produce = () => {
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
produced++;
return new Random(2).Next(1000);
};
Action<int> consume = c => { consumed++; };
var t = new ProducerConsumer<int>(produce, consume);
t.Start();
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
t.Stop();
Assert.InRange(produced,40,60);
Assert.InRange(consumed, 40, 60);
}