We have an old 3rd party system (let's call it Junksoft® 95) that we interface with via PowerShell (it exposes a COM object) and I'm in the process of wrapping it in a REST API (ASP.NET Framework 4.8 and WebAPI 2). I use the System.Management.Automation nuget package to create a PowerShell in which I instantiate Junksoft's COM API as a dynamic object that I then use:
//I'm omitting some exception handling and maintenance code for brevity
powerShell = System.Management.Automation.PowerShell.Create();
powerShell.AddScript("Add-Type -Path C:\Path\To\Junksoft\Scripting.dll");
powerShell.AddScript("New-Object Com.Junksoft.Scripting.ScriptingObject");
dynamic junksoftAPI = powerShell.Invoke()[0];
//Now we issue commands to junksoftAPI like this:
junksoftAPI.Login(user,pass);
int age = junksoftAPI.GetAgeByCustomerId(custId);
List<string> names = junksoftAPI.GetNames();
This works fine when I run all of this on the same thread (e.g. in a console application). However, for some reason this usually doesn't work when I put junksoftAPI into a System.Web.Caching.Cache and use it from different controllers in my web app. I say ususally because this actually works when ASP.NET happens to give the incoming call to the thread that junksoftAPI was created on. If it doesn't, Junksoft 95 gives me an error.
Is there any way for me to make sure that all interactions with junksoftAPI happen on the same thread?
Note that I don't want to turn the whole web application into a single-threaded application! The logic in the controllers and elswhere should happen like normal on different threads. It should only be the Junksoft interactions that happen on the Junksoft-specific thread, something like this:
[HttpGet]
public IHttpActionResult GetAge(...)
{
//finding customer ID in database...
...
int custAge = await Task.Run(() => {
//this should happen on the Junksoft-specific thread and not the next available thread
var cache = new System.Web.Caching.Cache();
var junksoftAPI = cache.Get(...); //This has previously been added to cache on the Junksoft-specific thread
return junksoftAPI.GetAgeByCustomerId(custId);
});
//prepare a response using custAge...
}
You can create your own singleton worker thread to achieve this. Here is the code which you can plug it into your web application.
public class JunkSoftRunner
{
private static JunkSoftRunner _instance;
//singleton pattern to restrict all the actions to be executed on a single thread only.
public static JunkSoftRunner Instance => _instance ?? (_instance = new JunkSoftRunner());
private readonly SemaphoreSlim _semaphore;
private readonly AutoResetEvent _newTaskRunSignal;
private TaskCompletionSource<object> _taskCompletionSource;
private Func<object> _func;
private JunkSoftRunner()
{
_semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
_newTaskRunSignal = new AutoResetEvent(false);
var contextThread = new Thread(ThreadLooper)
{
Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest
};
contextThread.Start();
}
private void ThreadLooper()
{
while (true)
{
//wait till the next task signal is received.
_newTaskRunSignal.WaitOne();
//next task execution signal is received.
try
{
//try execute the task and get the result
var result = _func.Invoke();
//task executed successfully, set the result
_taskCompletionSource.SetResult(result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//task execution threw an exception, set the exception and continue with the looper
_taskCompletionSource.SetException(ex);
}
}
}
public async Task<TResult> Run<TResult>(Func<TResult> func, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default(CancellationToken))
{
//allows only one thread to run at a time.
await _semaphore.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
//thread has acquired the semaphore and entered
try
{
//create new task completion source to wait for func to get executed on the context thread
_taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
//set the function to be executed by the context thread
_func = () => func();
//signal the waiting context thread that it is time to execute the task
_newTaskRunSignal.Set();
//wait and return the result till the task execution is finished on the context/looper thread.
return (TResult)await _taskCompletionSource.Task;
}
finally
{
//release the semaphore to allow other threads to acquire it.
_semaphore.Release();
}
}
}
Console Main Method for testing:
public class Program
{
//testing the junk soft runner
public static void Main()
{
//get the singleton instance
var softRunner = JunkSoftRunner.Instance;
//simulate web request on different threads
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
var taskIndex = i;
//launch a web request on a new thread.
Task.Run(async () =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"Task{taskIndex} (ThreadID:'{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId})' Launched");
return await softRunner.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"->Task{taskIndex} Completed On '{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}' thread.");
return taskIndex;
});
});
}
}
}
Output:
Notice that, though the function was launched from the different threads, some portion of code got always executed always on the same context thread with ID: '5'.
But beware that, though all the web requests are executed on independent threads, they will eventually wait for some tasks to get executed on the singleton worker thread. This will eventually create a bottle neck in your web application. This is anyway your design limitation.
Here is how you could issue commands to the Junksoft API from a dedicated STA thread, using a BlockingCollection class:
public class JunksoftSTA : IDisposable
{
private readonly BlockingCollection<Action<Lazy<dynamic>>> _pump;
private readonly Thread _thread;
public JunksoftSTA()
{
_pump = new BlockingCollection<Action<Lazy<dynamic>>>();
_thread = new Thread(() =>
{
var lazyApi = new Lazy<dynamic>(() =>
{
var powerShell = System.Management.Automation.PowerShell.Create();
powerShell.AddScript("Add-Type -Path C:\Path\To\Junksoft.dll");
powerShell.AddScript("New-Object Com.Junksoft.ScriptingObject");
dynamic junksoftAPI = powerShell.Invoke()[0];
return junksoftAPI;
});
foreach (var action in _pump.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
action(lazyApi);
}
});
_thread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
_thread.IsBackground = true;
_thread.Start();
}
public Task<T> CallAsync<T>(Func<dynamic, T> function)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<T>(
TaskCreationOptions.RunContinuationsAsynchronously);
_pump.Add(lazyApi =>
{
try
{
var result = function(lazyApi.Value);
tcs.SetResult(result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
tcs.SetException(ex);
}
});
return tcs.Task;
}
public Task CallAsync(Action<dynamic> action)
{
return CallAsync<object>(api => { action(api); return null; });
}
public void Dispose() => _pump.CompleteAdding();
public void Join() => _thread.Join();
}
The purpose of using the Lazy class is for surfacing a possible exception during the construction of the dynamic object, by propagating it to the callers.
...exceptions are cached. That is, if the factory method throws an exception the first time a thread tries to access the Value property of the Lazy<T> object, the same exception is thrown on every subsequent attempt.
Usage example:
// A static field stored somewhere
public static readonly JunksoftSTA JunksoftStatic = new JunksoftSTA();
await JunksoftStatic.CallAsync(api => { api.Login("x", "y"); });
int age = await JunksoftStatic.CallAsync(api => api.GetAgeByCustomerId(custId));
In case you find that a single STA thread is not enough to serve all the requests in a timely manner, you could add more STA threads, all of them running the same code (private readonly Thread[] _threads; etc). The BlockingCollection class is thread-safe and can be consumed concurrently by any number of threads.
If you did not say that was a 3rd party tool, I would have asumed it is a GUI class. For practical reasons, it is a very bad idea to have multiple threads write to them. .NET enforces a strict "only the creating thread shall write" rule, from 2.0 onward.
WebServers in general and ASP.Net in particular use a pretty big thread pool. We are talking 10's to 100's of Threads per Core. That means it is really hard to nail any request down to a specific Thread. You might as well not try.
Again, looking at the GUI classes might be your best bet. You could basically make a single thread with the sole purpose of immitating a GUI's Event Queue. The Main/UI Thread of your average Windows Forms application, is responsible for creating every GUI class instance. It is kept alive by polling/processing the event queue. It ends onlyx when it receies a cancel command, via teh Event Queue. Dispatching just puts orders into that Queue, so we can avoid Cross-Threading issues.
We could abort a Thread like this:
Thread thread = new Thread(SomeMethod);
.
.
.
thread.Abort();
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
The guidance on not using a thread abort is controversial. I think there is still a place for it but in exceptional circumstance. However you should always attempt to design around it and see it as a last resort.
Example;
You have a simple windows form application that connects to a blocking synchronous web service. Within which it executes a function on the web service within a Parallel loop.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
});
Say in this example, the blocking call takes 2 mins to complete. Now I set my MaxDegreeOfParallelism to say ProcessorCount. iListOfItems has 1000 items within it to process.
The user clicks the process button and the loop commences, we have 'up-to' 20 threads executing against 1000 items in the iListOfItems collection. Each iteration executes on its own thread. Each thread will utilise a foreground thread when created by Parallel.ForEach. This means regardless of the main application shutdown, the app domain will be kept alive until all threads have finished.
However the user needs to close the application for some reason, say they close the form.
These 20 threads will continue to execute until all 1000 items are processed. This is not ideal in this scenario, as the application will not exit as the user expects and will continue to run behind the scenes, as can be seen by taking a look in task manger.
Say the user tries to rebuild the app again (VS 2010), it reports the exe is locked, then they would have to go into task manager to kill it or just wait until all 1000 items are processed.
I would not blame you for saying, but of course! I should be cancelling these threads using the CancellationTokenSource object and calling Cancel ... but there are some problems with this as of .net 4.0. Firstly this is still never going to result in a thread abort which would offer up an abort exception followed by thread termination, so the app domain will instead need to wait for the threads to finish normally, and this means waiting for the last blocking call, which would be the very last running iteration (thread) that ultimately gets to call po.CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested.
In the example this would mean the app domain could still stay alive for up to 2 mins, even though the form has been closed and cancel called.
Note that Calling Cancel on CancellationTokenSource does not throw an exception on the processing thread(s), which would indeed act to interrupt the blocking call similar to a thread abort and stop the execution. An exception is cached ready for when all the other threads (concurrent iterations) eventually finish and return, the exception is thrown in the initiating thread (where the loop is declared).
I chose not to use the Cancel option on a CancellationTokenSource object. This is wasteful and arguably violates the well known anti-patten of controlling the flow of the code by Exceptions.
Instead, it is arguably 'better' to implement a simple thread safe property i.e. Bool stopExecuting. Then within the loop, check the value of stopExecuting and if the value is set to true by the external influence, we can take an alternate path to close down gracefully. Since we should not call cancel, this precludes checking CancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested which would otherwise be another option.
Something like the following if condition would be appropriate within the loop;
if (loopState.ShouldExitCurrentIteration || loopState.IsExceptional || stopExecuting) {loopState.Stop(); return;}
The iteration will now exit in a 'controlled' manner as well as terminating further iterations, but as I said, this does little for our issue of having to wait on the long running and blocking call(s) that are made within each iteration (parallel loop thread), since these have to complete before each thread can get to the option of checking if it should stop.
In summary, as the user closes the form, the 20 threads will be signaled to stop via stopExecuting, but they will only stop when they have finished executing their long running function call.
We can't do anything about the fact that the application domain will always stay alive and only be released when all foreground threads have completed. And this means there will be a delay associated with waiting for any blocking calls made within the loop to complete.
Only a true thread abort can interrupt the blocking call, and you must mitigate leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state the best you can in the aborted thread's exception handler which goes without question. Whether that's appropriate is a matter for the programmer to decide, based on what resource handles they chose to maintain and how easy it is to close them in a thread's finally block. You could register with a token to terminate on cancel as a semi workaround i.e.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
using (cts.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
Try
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
}
Catch(ThreadAbortException ex)
{
// log etc.
}
Finally
{
// clean up here
}
}
});
but this will still result in an exception in the declaring thread.
All things considered, interrupt blocking calls using the parallel.loop constructs could have been a method on the options, avoiding the use of more obscure parts of the library. But why there is no option to cancel and avoid throwing an exception in the declaring method strikes me as a possible oversight.
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by
cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
Other answerers have told you not to do it. But yes, you can do it. You can supply Thread.Abort() as the delegate to be called by the Task's cancellation mechanism. Here is how you could configure this:
class HardAborter
{
public bool WasAborted { get; private set; }
private CancellationTokenSource Canceller { get; set; }
private Task<object> Worker { get; set; }
public void Start(Func<object> DoFunc)
{
WasAborted = false;
// start a task with a means to do a hard abort (unsafe!)
Canceller = new CancellationTokenSource();
Worker = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
// specify this thread's Abort() as the cancel delegate
using (Canceller.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
return DoFunc();
}
}
catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
WasAborted = true;
return false;
}
}, Canceller.Token);
}
public void Abort()
{
Canceller.Cancel();
}
}
disclaimer: don't do this.
Here is an example of what not to do:
var doNotDoThis = new HardAborter();
// start a thread writing to the console
doNotDoThis.Start(() =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
Console.Write(".");
}
return null;
});
// wait a second to see some output and show the WasAborted value as false
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted);
// wait another second, abort, and print the time
Thread.Sleep(1000);
doNotDoThis.Abort();
Console.WriteLine("Abort triggered at " + DateTime.Now);
// wait until the abort finishes and print the time
while (!doNotDoThis.WasAborted) { Thread.CurrentThread.Join(0); }
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted + " at " + DateTime.Now);
Console.ReadKey();
You shouldn't use Thread.Abort()
Tasks can be Cancelled but not aborted.
The Thread.Abort() method is (severely) deprecated.
Both Threads and Tasks should cooperate when being stopped, otherwise you run the risk of leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state.
If you do need to run a Process and kill it from the outside, the only safe option is to run it in a separate AppDomain.
This answer is about .net 3.5 and earlier.
Thread-abort handling has been improved since then, a.o. by changing the way finally blocks work.
But Thread.Abort is still a suspect solution that you should always try to avoid.
And in .net Core (.net 5+) Thread.Abort() will now throw a PlatformNotSupportedException .
Kind of underscoring the 'deprecated' point.
Everyone knows (hopefully) its bad to terminate thread. The problem is when you don't own a piece of code you're calling. If this code is running in some do/while infinite loop , itself calling some native functions, etc. you're basically stuck. When this happens in your own code termination, stop or Dispose call, it's kinda ok to start shooting the bad guys (so you don't become a bad guy yourself).
So, for what it's worth, I've written those two blocking functions that use their own native thread, not a thread from the pool or some thread created by the CLR. They will stop the thread if a timeout occurs:
// returns true if the call went to completion successfully, false otherwise
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(action, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (action == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var success = false;
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
action();
success = true;
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return success;
}
// returns what's the function should return if the call went to completion successfully, default(T) otherwise
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(func, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (func == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(func));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var item = default(T);
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
item = func();
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return item;
}
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool TerminateThread(IntPtr hThread, int dwExitCode);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern IntPtr CreateThread(IntPtr lpThreadAttributes, IntPtr dwStackSize, Delegate lpStartAddress, IntPtr lpParameter, int dwCreationFlags, out int lpThreadId);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool CloseHandle(IntPtr hObject);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern int WaitForSingleObject(IntPtr hHandle, int dwMilliseconds);
While it's possible to abort a thread, in practice it's almost always a very bad idea to do so. Aborthing a thread means the thread is not given a chance to clean up after itself, leaving resources undeleted, and things in unknown states.
In practice, if you abort a thread, you should only do so in conjunction with killing the process. Sadly, all too many people think ThreadAbort is a viable way of stopping something and continuing on, it's not.
Since Tasks run as threads, you can call ThreadAbort on them, but as with generic threads you almost never want to do this, except as a last resort.
I faced a similar problem with Excel's Application.Workbooks.
If the application is busy, the method hangs eternally. My approach was simply to try to get it in a task and wait, if it takes too long, I just leave the task be and go away (there is no harm "in this case", Excel will unfreeze the moment the user finishes whatever is busy).
In this case, it's impossible to use a cancellation token. The advantage is that I don't need excessive code, aborting threads, etc.
public static List<Workbook> GetAllOpenWorkbooks()
{
//gets all open Excel applications
List<Application> applications = GetAllOpenApplications();
//this is what we want to get from the third party library that may freeze
List<Workbook> books = null;
//as Excel may freeze here due to being busy, we try to get the workbooks asynchronously
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
books = applications
.SelectMany(app => app.Workbooks.OfType<Workbook>()).ToList();
}
catch { }
});
//wait for task completion
task.Wait(5000);
return books; //handle outside if books is null
}
This is my implementation of an idea presented by #Simon-Mourier, using the dotnet thread, short and simple code:
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds)
{
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var success = false;
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
action();
success = true;
});
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
thread.Join(milliseconds);
thread.Abort();
return success;
}
You can "abort" a task by running it on a thread you control and aborting that thread. This causes the task to complete in a faulted state with a ThreadAbortException. You can control thread creation with a custom task scheduler, as described in this answer. Note that the caveat about aborting a thread applies.
(If you don't ensure the task is created on its own thread, aborting it would abort either a thread-pool thread or the thread initiating the task, neither of which you typically want to do.)
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
...
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = Task.Run(() => { while (true) { } });
Parallel.Invoke(() =>
{
task.Wait(cts.Token);
}, () =>
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
cts.Cancel();
});
This is a simple snippet to abort a never-ending task with CancellationTokenSource.
I'm using threads to connect to multiple clients (PLCs) from my program. Program will send data and receive response from the PLC(s).. The problem im having is, when in debugging mode, (toggle breakpoint) one step at a time..the program work pretty much ok!, with the ID received confirming that it's coming from one of the thread.. but if I just debug without toggling any breakpoint, the response event will receive the same ID, although on different thread.. what could be wrong...
Debugging mode with breakpoint:
Debugging mode without breakpoint:
Below is my code
Start Request:
private void StartRequest()
{
foreach (ModbusTCP work in works)
{
work.Connect();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
if (work.Connected)
{
try
{
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(() => work.StartReadHoldingRegister())) {
Name = ((ReadHoldingRegisterParam)work.SetReadHoldingRegisterParam).id.ToString(),
IsBackground = true
};
work.OnResponseEvent += new EventHandler<ModbusTCP.ResponseEventArgs>(modbus_OnResponseEvent);
work.OnExceptionEvent += new EventHandler<ModbusTCP.ExceptionEventArgs>(modbus_OnExceptionEvent);
thread.Start();
threads.Add(thread);
}
catch (ThreadStateException ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
}
else
work.Disconnect();
}
}
Response Event
private void modbus_OnResponseEvent(object sender, ModbusTCP.ResponseEventArgs e)
{
lock (lockingObject)
{
if (e.data.Length > 0)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
AddRow(RcvDataGrid, new PLCPacket() {
PLCId = e.id.ToString(),
PLCIp = "Test",
PLCTime = DateTime.Now.ToString("yyyy-MM-dd hh:mm:ss tt"),
PLCData = ""
});
}));
}
}
}
Your variable work is shared among the threads. Once a thread is executed it takes whatever value your variable work has. That depends how quick each thread is processed. When you step through your code with a debugger you don't experience that.
If you capture the value before the anonymous method you should be fine:
try
{
// capture the current value of the loop variable
ModbusTCP localWork = work;
// so the anonymous method uses the reference in localWork
// instead of whatever value work has, which can be anywhere
// the future, worst case after your loop is finished, where
// work would hold the last value of the loop, and then
// start all threads with that value.
Thread thread = new Thread(
new ThreadStart(
() => localWork.StartReadHoldingRegister()))
{
Name = ((ReadHoldingRegisterParam) localWork.SetReadHoldingRegisterParam).id.ToString(),
IsBackground = true };
});
localWork.OnResponseEvent += new EventHandler<ModbusTCP.ResponseEventArgs>(modbus_OnResponseEvent);
localWork.OnExceptionEvent += new EventHandler<ModbusTCP.ExceptionEventArgs>(modbus_OnExceptionEvent);
A side comment:
lock (lockingObject)
{
if (e.data.Length > 0)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
This code is very unlikely to be correct. Here you are obtaining a lock in the original thread and then submitting a new action, async. The lock is scoped to the current method, and thus will be released as soon as the BeginInvoke call returns, not during the action itself. The only operations actually guarded by the lock is the e.data.Length check, which operates on a parameter (not shared) state and thus does not need protection.
It would make more sense to place the lock inside the action, but the action is always executed on the main thread and thus is unlikely to actually need protection (because is, basically, single threaded). Is difficult to guess exactly what you're trying to achieve w/o seeing the whole code, but that lock(lockingObject) is very unlikely to be necessary, or useful.
I am working on an application that talks to a motion controller over ethernet.
To connect to the controller I use a library provided by the supplier, to connect you create an instance of the controller than then tell it to connect, this has the chance to block for a few seconds (with no controllable timeout) if there is no controller present. This cause freeze ups in the UI.
To avoid this I thought I would be able to use Tasks to run the connection in a different thread.
ConnectionTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
RMCLink rmc = RMCLink.CreateEthernetLink(DeviceType.RMC70, "192.168.0.55");
RMC.Connect();
}
catch
{
this.logger.Log("Failed to connect");
}
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
This has no effect whatsoever and the UI still locks up.
I think I am using them properly as if I replace it with the below code the UI is fine even though the separate thread takes a few seconds before the message comes out.
ConnectionTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
int x = 1;
while (x != 0) x++;
this.logger.Log("Failed to connect");
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
Is there any way I can identify what is going on and prevent calls that I do not know anything about their inner workings from locking the UI thread.
Use async/await, something along the lines of:
public async void MyButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await CreateEthernetLink();
this.logger.Log("Connected!");
}
private async Task CreateEthernetLink()
{
var task = Task.Run(() => {
try
{
RMCLink rmc = RMCLink.CreateEthernetLink(DeviceType.RMC70, "192.168.0.55");
rmc.Connect();
}
catch
{
this.logger.Log("Failed to connect");
}});
await task;
}
The await will capture the current thread (or SynchronizationContext - in this case the UI thread which is being blocked) and restore it after the async work has been completed.
So the threading is all handled for you behind the scenes and you should notice no difference in your application other than the fact that your application no longer freezes when performing connections.
EDIT: I also noticed in your code your initializing rmc but calling connect on RMC. I don't think this is correct.
I am trying to access the UI thread in C# for windows phone 8. So far I got this. However, once it runs SmartDispatcher, it jumps to finally with receipt == null.
I got the SmartDispatcher class from this website(http://www.jeff.wilcox.name/2010/04/propertychangedbase-crossthread/). I was wondering if other people had this problem and how to solve it.
private async void purchaseProduct()
{
try{
li = await Store.CurrentApp.LoadListingInformationAsync();
SmartDispatcher.BeginInvoke(async delegate()
{
receipt = await Store.CurrentApp.RequestProductPurchaseAsync(package_id, true);
});
}
catch
{
DispatchCommandResult(new PluginResult(PluginResult.Status.ERROR));
}
finally
{
if(receipt != null)
{
parseXML(package_id);
prepData();
httpPostData();
Store.CurrentApp.ReportProductFulfillment(package_id);
}
}
}
Of course it will jump there immediately, as you are commencing an asynchronous operation, which does not block, but returns immediately.
Look, if the object contains a method Invoke instead of BeginInvoke. Invoke will block until the operation is complete.
See this thread as a reference.