We Keep Coding

Creating a class that runs tasks sequentially [duplicate]

I know that asynchronous programming has seen a lot of changes over the years. I'm somewhat embarrassed that I let myself get this rusty at just 34 years old, but I'm counting on StackOverflow to bring me up to speed.
What I am trying to do is manage a queue of "work" on a separate thread, but in such a way that only one item is processed at a time. I want to post work on this thread and it doesn't need to pass anything back to the caller. Of course I could simply spin up a new Thread object and have it loop over a shared Queue object, using sleeps, interrupts, wait handles, etc. But I know things have gotten better since then. We have BlockingCollection, Task, async/await, not to mention NuGet packages that probably abstract a lot of that.
I know that "What's the best..." questions are generally frowned upon so I'll rephrase it by saying "What is the currently recommended..." way to accomplish something like this using built-in .NET mechanisms preferably. But if a third party NuGet package simplifies things a bunch, it's just as well.
I considered a TaskScheduler instance with a fixed maximum concurrency of 1, but seems there is probably a much less clunky way to do that by now.
Background
Specifically, what I am trying to do in this case is queue an IP geolocation task during a web request. The same IP might wind up getting queued for geolocation multiple times, but the task will know how to detect that and skip out early if it's already been resolved. But the request handler is just going to throw these () => LocateAddress(context.Request.UserHostAddress) calls into a queue and let the LocateAddress method handle duplicate work detection. The geolocation API I am using doesn't like to be bombarded with requests which is why I want to limit it to a single concurrent task at a time. However, it would be nice if the approach was allowed to easily scale to more concurrent tasks with a simple parameter change.

To create an asynchronous single degree of parallelism queue of work you can simply create a SemaphoreSlim, initialized to one, and then have the enqueing method await on the acquisition of that semaphore before starting the requested work.
public class TaskQueue
{
private SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
public TaskQueue()
{
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
}
public async Task<T> Enqueue<T>(Func<Task<T>> taskGenerator)
{
await semaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
return await taskGenerator();
}
finally
{
semaphore.Release();
}
}
public async Task Enqueue(Func<Task> taskGenerator)
{
await semaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
await taskGenerator();
}
finally
{
semaphore.Release();
}
}
}
Of course, to have a fixed degree of parallelism other than one simply initialize the semaphore to some other number.

Your best option as I see it is using TPL Dataflow's ActionBlock:
var actionBlock = new ActionBlock<string>(address =>
{
if (!IsDuplicate(address))
{
LocateAddress(address);
}
});
actionBlock.Post(context.Request.UserHostAddress);
TPL Dataflow is robust, thread-safe, async-ready and very configurable actor-based framework (available as a nuget)
Here's a simple example for a more complicated case. Let's assume you want to:
Enable concurrency (limited to the available cores).
Limit the queue size (so you won't run out of memory).
Have both LocateAddress and the queue insertion be async.
Cancel everything after an hour.
var actionBlock = new ActionBlock<string>(async address =>
{
if (!IsDuplicate(address))
{
await LocateAddressAsync(address);
}
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions
{
BoundedCapacity = 10000,
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = Environment.ProcessorCount,
CancellationToken = new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromHours(1)).Token
});
await actionBlock.SendAsync(context.Request.UserHostAddress);

Actually you don't need to run tasks in one thread, you need them to run serially (one after another), and FIFO. TPL doesn't have class for that, but here is my very lightweight, non-blocking implementation with tests. https://github.com/Gentlee/SerialQueue
Also have #Servy implementation there, tests show it is twice slower than mine and it doesn't guarantee FIFO.
Example:
private readonly SerialQueue queue = new SerialQueue();
async Task SomeAsyncMethod()
{
var result = await queue.Enqueue(DoSomething);
}

Use BlockingCollection<Action> to create a producer/consumer pattern with one consumer (only one thing running at a time like you want) and one or many producers.
First define a shared queue somewhere:
BlockingCollection<Action> queue = new BlockingCollection<Action>();
In your consumer Thread or Task you take from it:
//This will block until there's an item available
Action itemToRun = queue.Take()
Then from any number of producers on other threads, simply add to the queue:
queue.Add(() => LocateAddress(context.Request.UserHostAddress));

I'm posting a different solution here. To be honest I'm not sure whether this is a good solution.
I'm used to use BlockingCollection to implement a producer/consumer pattern, with a dedicated thread consuming those items. It's fine if there are always data coming in and consumer thread won't sit there and do nothing.
I encountered a scenario that one of the application would like to send emails on a different thread, but total number of emails is not that big.
My initial solution was to have a dedicated consumer thread (created by Task.Run()), but a lot of time it just sits there and does nothing.
Old solution:
private readonly BlockingCollection<EmailData> _Emails =
new BlockingCollection<EmailData>(new ConcurrentQueue<EmailData>());
// producer can add data here
public void Add(EmailData emailData)
{
_Emails.Add(emailData);
}
public void Run()
{
// create a consumer thread
Task.Run(() =>
{
foreach (var emailData in _Emails.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
SendEmail(emailData);
}
});
}
// sending email implementation
private void SendEmail(EmailData emailData)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
As you can see, if there are not enough emails to be sent (and it is my case), the consumer thread will spend most of them sitting there and do nothing at all.
I changed my implementation to:
// create an empty task
private Task _SendEmailTask = Task.Run(() => {});
// caller will dispatch the email to here
// continuewith will use a thread pool thread (different to
// _SendEmailTask thread) to send this email
private void Add(EmailData emailData)
{
_SendEmailTask = _SendEmailTask.ContinueWith((t) =>
{
SendEmail(emailData);
});
}
// actual implementation
private void SendEmail(EmailData emailData)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
It's no longer a producer/consumer pattern, but it won't have a thread sitting there and does nothing, instead, every time it is to send an email, it will use thread pool thread to do it.

My lib, It can:
Run random in queue list
Multi queue
Run prioritize first
Re-queue
Event all queue completed
Cancel running or cancel wait for running
Dispatch event to UI thread
public interface IQueue
{
bool IsPrioritize { get; }
bool ReQueue { get; }
/// <summary>
/// Dont use async
/// </summary>
/// <returns></returns>
Task DoWork();
bool CheckEquals(IQueue queue);
void Cancel();
}
public delegate void QueueComplete<T>(T queue) where T : IQueue;
public delegate void RunComplete();
public class TaskQueue<T> where T : IQueue
{
readonly List<T> Queues = new List<T>();
readonly List<T> Runnings = new List<T>();
[Browsable(false), DefaultValue((string)null)]
public Dispatcher Dispatcher { get; set; }
public event RunComplete OnRunComplete;
public event QueueComplete<T> OnQueueComplete;
int _MaxRun = 1;
public int MaxRun
{
get { return _MaxRun; }
set
{
bool flag = value > _MaxRun;
_MaxRun = value;
if (flag && Queues.Count != 0) RunNewQueue();
}
}
public int RunningCount
{
get { return Runnings.Count; }
}
public int QueueCount
{
get { return Queues.Count; }
}
public bool RunRandom { get; set; } = false;
//need lock Queues first
void StartQueue(T queue)
{
if (null != queue)
{
Queues.Remove(queue);
lock (Runnings) Runnings.Add(queue);
queue.DoWork().ContinueWith(ContinueTaskResult, queue);
}
}
void RunNewQueue()
{
lock (Queues)//Prioritize
{
foreach (var q in Queues.Where(x => x.IsPrioritize)) StartQueue(q);
}
if (Runnings.Count >= MaxRun) return;//other
else if (Queues.Count == 0)
{
if (Runnings.Count == 0 && OnRunComplete != null)
{
if (Dispatcher != null && !Dispatcher.CheckAccess()) Dispatcher.Invoke(OnRunComplete);
else OnRunComplete.Invoke();//on completed
}
else return;
}
else
{
lock (Queues)
{
T queue;
if (RunRandom) queue = Queues.OrderBy(x => Guid.NewGuid()).FirstOrDefault();
else queue = Queues.FirstOrDefault();
StartQueue(queue);
}
if (Queues.Count > 0 && Runnings.Count < MaxRun) RunNewQueue();
}
}
void ContinueTaskResult(Task Result, object queue_obj) => QueueCompleted((T)queue_obj);
void QueueCompleted(T queue)
{
lock (Runnings) Runnings.Remove(queue);
if (queue.ReQueue) lock (Queues) Queues.Add(queue);
if (OnQueueComplete != null)
{
if (Dispatcher != null && !Dispatcher.CheckAccess()) Dispatcher.Invoke(OnQueueComplete, queue);
else OnQueueComplete.Invoke(queue);
}
RunNewQueue();
}
public void Add(T queue)
{
if (null == queue) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(queue));
lock (Queues) Queues.Add(queue);
RunNewQueue();
}
public void Cancel(T queue)
{
if (null == queue) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(queue));
lock (Queues) Queues.RemoveAll(o => o.CheckEquals(queue));
lock (Runnings) Runnings.ForEach(o => { if (o.CheckEquals(queue)) o.Cancel(); });
}
public void Reset(T queue)
{
if (null == queue) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(queue));
Cancel(queue);
Add(queue);
}
public void ShutDown()
{
MaxRun = 0;
lock (Queues) Queues.Clear();
lock (Runnings) Runnings.ForEach(o => o.Cancel());
}
}

I know this thread is old, but it seems all the present solutions are extremely onerous. The simplest way I could find uses the Linq Aggregate function to create a daisy-chained list of tasks.
var arr = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
var queue = arr.Aggregate(Task.CompletedTask,
(prev, item) => prev.ContinueWith(antecedent => PerformWorkHere(item)));
The idea is to get your data into an IEnumerable (I'm using an int array), and then reduce that enumerable to a chain of tasks, starting with a default, completed, task.

Start threads at the order that they were started, only when previous thread was finished

Sorry for the confusing title, but that's basically what i need, i could do something with global variables but that would only be viable for 2 threads that are requested one after the other.
here is a pseudo code that might explain it better.
/*Async function that gets requests from a server*/
if ()//recieved request from server
{
new Thread(() =>
{
//do stuff
//in the meantime a new thread has been requested from server
//and another one 10 seconds later.. etc.
//wait for this current thread to finish
//fire up the first thread that was requested while this ongoing thread
//after the second thread is finished fire up the third thread that was requested 10 seconds after this thread
//etc...
}).Start();
}
I don't know when each thread will be requested, as it is based on the server sending info to client, so i cant do Task.ContiuneWith as it's dynamic.
So Michael suggested me to look into Queues, and i came up with it
static Queue<Action> myQ = new Queue<Action>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Thread(() =>
{
while (1 == 1)
{
if (myQ.FirstOrDefault() == null)
break;
myQ.FirstOrDefault().Invoke();
}
}).Start();
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("First");
});
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("Second");
});
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void TestQ(string s)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
Thread.Sleep(5000);
myQ.Dequeue();
}
I commented the code, i basically need to check if the act is first in queue or not.
EDIT: So i re-made it, and now it works, surely there is a better way to do this ? because i cant afford to use an infinite while loop.

You will have to use a global container for the threads. Maybe check Queues.
This class implements a queue as a circular array. Objects stored in a
Queue are inserted at one end and removed from the other.
Queues and stacks are useful when you need temporary storage for
information; that is, when you might want to discard an element after
retrieving its value. Use Queue if you need to access the information
in the same order that it is stored in the collection. Use Stack if
you need to access the information in reverse order. Use
ConcurrentQueue(Of T) or ConcurrentStack(Of T) if you need to access
the collection from multiple threads concurrently.
Three main operations can be performed on a Queue and its elements:
Enqueue adds an element to the end of the Queue.
Dequeue removes the oldest element from the start of the Queue.
Peek returns the oldest element that is at the start of the Queue but does not remove it from the Queue.
EDIT (From what you added)
Here is how I would change your example code to implement the infinite loop and keep it under your control.
static Queue<Action> myQ = new Queue<Action>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("First");
});
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("Second");
});
Thread thread = new Thread(() =>
{
while(true) {
Thread.Sleep(5000)
if (myQ.Count > 0) {
myQ.Dequeue().Invoke()
}
}
}).Start();
// Do other stuff, eventually calling "thread.Stop()" the stop the infinite loop.
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void TestQ(string s)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}

You could put the requests that you receive into a queue if there is a thread currently running. Then, to find out when threads return, they could fire an event. When this event fires, if there is something in the queue, start a new thread to process this new request.
The only thing with this is you have to be careful about race conditions, since you are communicating essentially between multiple threads.

Thread Safety in Concurrent Queue C#

I have a MessagesManager thread to which different threads may send messages and then this MessagesManager thread is responsible to publish these messages inside SendMessageToTcpIP() (start point of MessagesManager thread ).
class MessagesManager : IMessageNotifier
{
//private
private readonly AutoResetEvent _waitTillMessageQueueEmptyARE = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private ConcurrentQueue<string> MessagesQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
public void PublishMessage(string Message)
{
MessagesQueue.Enqueue(Message);
_waitTillMessageQueueEmptyARE.Set();
}
public void SendMessageToTcpIP()
{
//keep waiting till a new message comes
while (MessagesQueue.Count() == 0)
{
_waitTillMessageQueueEmptyARE.WaitOne();
}
//Copy the Concurrent Queue into a local queue - keep dequeuing the item once it is inserts into the local Queue
Queue<string> localMessagesQueue = new Queue<string>();
while (!MessagesQueue.IsEmpty)
{
string message;
bool isRemoved = MessagesQueue.TryDequeue(out message);
if (isRemoved)
localMessagesQueue.Enqueue(message);
}
//Use the Local Queue for further processing
while (localMessagesQueue.Count() != 0)
{
TcpIpMessageSenderClient.ConnectAndSendMessage(localMessagesQueue.Dequeue().PadRight(80, ' '));
Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
}
}
The different threads (3-4) send their message by calling the PublishMessage(string Message) (using same object to MessageManager). Once the message comes, I push that message into a concurrent queue and notifies the SendMessageToTcpIP() by setting _waitTillMessageQueueEmptyARE.Set();. Inside SendMessageToTcpIP(), I am copying the message from the concurrent queue inside a local queue and then publish one by one.
QUESTIONS: Is it thread safe to do enqueuing and dequeuing in this way? Could there be some strange effects due to it?

While this is probably thread-safe, there are built-in classes in .NET to help with "many publishers one consumer" pattern, like BlockingCollection. You can rewrite your class like this:
class MessagesManager : IDisposable {
// note that your ConcurrentQueue is still in play, passed to constructor
private readonly BlockingCollection<string> MessagesQueue = new BlockingCollection<string>(new ConcurrentQueue<string>());
public MessagesManager() {
// start consumer thread here
new Thread(SendLoop) {
IsBackground = true
}.Start();
}
public void PublishMessage(string Message) {
// no need to notify here, will be done for you
MessagesQueue.Add(Message);
}
private void SendLoop() {
// this blocks until new items are available
foreach (var item in MessagesQueue.GetConsumingEnumerable()) {
// ensure that you handle exceptions here, or whole thing will break on exception
TcpIpMessageSenderClient.ConnectAndSendMessage(item.PadRight(80, ' '));
Thread.Sleep(2000); // only if you are sure this is required
}
}
public void Dispose() {
// this will "complete" GetConsumingEnumerable, so your thread will complete
MessagesQueue.CompleteAdding();
MessagesQueue.Dispose();
}
}

.NET already provides ActionBlock< T> that allows posting messages to a buffer and processing them asynchronously. By default, only one message is processed at a time.
Your code could be rewritten as:
//In an initialization function
ActionBlock<string> _hmiAgent=new ActionBlock<string>(async msg=>{
TcpIpMessageSenderClient.ConnectAndSendMessage(msg.PadRight(80, ' '));
await Task.Delay(2000);
);
//In some other thread ...
foreach ( ....)
{
_hmiAgent.Post(someMessage);
}
// When the application closes
_hmiAgent.Complete();
await _hmiAgent.Completion;
ActionBlock offers many benefits - you can specify a limit to the number of items it can accept in a buffer and specify that multiple messages can be processed in parallel. You can also combine multiple blocks in a processing pipeline. In a desktop application, a message can be posted to a pipeline in response to an event, get processed by separate blocks and results posted to a final block that updates the UI.
Padding, for example, could be performed by an intermediary TransformBlock< TIn,TOut>. This transformation is trivial and the cost of using the block is greater than the method, but that's just an illustration:
//In an initialization function
TransformBlock<string> _hmiAgent=new TransformBlock<string,string>(
msg=>msg.PadRight(80, ' '));
ActionBlock<string> _tcpBlock=new ActionBlock<string>(async msg=>{
TcpIpMessageSenderClient.ConnectAndSendMessage());
await Task.Delay(2000);
);
var linkOptions=new DataflowLinkOptions{PropagateCompletion = true};
_hmiAgent.LinkTo(_tcpBlock);
The posting code doesn't change at all
_hmiAgent.Post(someMessage);
When the application terminates, we need to wait for the _tcpBlock to complete:
_hmiAgent.Complete();
await _tcpBlock.Completion;
Visual Studio 2015+ itself uses TPL Dataflow for such scenarios
Bar Arnon provides a better example in TPL Dataflow Is The Best Library You're Not Using, that shows how both synchronous and asynchronous methods can be used in a block.

The code is thread safe since both ConcurrentQueue and AutoResetEvent are thread safe. your strings are anyway being read and never being written to, so this code is thread safe.
However, You have to make sure you call SendMessageToTcpIP in some sort of a loop.
otherwise , you have a dangerous race condition - some messages may get lost:
while (!MessagesQueue.IsEmpty)
{
string message;
bool isRemoved = MessagesQueue.TryDequeue(out message);
if (isRemoved)
localMessagesQueue.Enqueue(message);
}
//<<--- what happens if another thread enqueues a message here?
while (localMessagesQueue.Count() != 0)
{
TcpIpMessageSenderClient.ConnectAndSendMessage(localMessagesQueue.Dequeue().PadRight(80, ' '));
Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
Other than that, AutoResetEvent is extremely heavy object. it uses a kernel object to synchronize threads. every call is a system call which may be costly. consider using user mode synchronization object (doesn't .net provides some sort of condition variable?)

This is an refactored code snippet of how I would implement this functionality:
class MessagesManager {
private readonly AutoResetEvent messagesAvailableSignal = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private readonly ConcurrentQueue<string> messageQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
public void PublishMessage(string Message) {
messageQueue.Enqueue(Message);
messagesAvailableSignal.Set();
}
public void SendMessageToTcpIP() {
while (true) {
messagesAvailableSignal.WaitOne();
while (!messageQueue.IsEmpty) {
string message;
if (messageQueue.TryDequeue(out message)) {
TcpIpMessageSenderClient.ConnectAndSendMessage(message.PadRight(80, ' '));
}
}
}
}
}
Points to note here:
This drains the queue completely: if there is at least one message, it will process all of them
The 2000ms Thread sleep is removed

classic producer consumer pattern using blockingcollection and tasks .net 4 TPL

Please see below pseudo code
//Single or multiple Producers produce using below method
void Produce(object itemToQueue)
{
concurrentQueue.enqueue(itemToQueue);
consumerSignal.set;
}
//somewhere else we have started a consumer like this
//we have only one consumer
void StartConsumer()
{
while (!concurrentQueue.IsEmpty())
{
if (concurrentQueue.TrydeQueue(out item))
{
//long running processing of item
}
}
consumerSignal.WaitOne();
}
How do I port this pattern I have used since time immemorial to use taskfactory created tasks and the new signalling features of net 4. In other words if someone were to write this pattern using net 4 how would it look like ? Pseudo code is fine. Iam already using .net 4 concurrentQueue as you can see. How do I use a task and possibly use some newer signalling mechanism if possible. thanks
Solution to my problem below thanks to Jon/Dan. Sweet.
No manual signalling or while(true) or while(itemstoProcess) type loops like the old days
//Single or multiple Producers produce using below method
void Produce(object itemToQueue)
{
blockingCollection.add(item);
}
//somewhere else we have started a consumer like this
//this supports multiple consumers !
task(StartConsuming()).Start;
void StartConsuming()
{
foreach (object item in blockingCollection.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
//long running processing of item
}
}
cancellations are handled using cancel tokens

You would use BlockingCollection<T>. There's an example in the documentation.
That class is specifically designed to make this trivial.

Your second block of code looks better. But, starting a Task and then immediately waiting on it is pointless. Just call Take and then process the item that is returned directly on the consuming thread. That is how the producer-consumer pattern is meant to be done. If you think the processing of work items is intensive enough to warrant more consumers then by all means start more consumers. BlockingCollection is safe multiple producers and multiple consumers.
public class YourCode
{
private BlockingCollection<object> queue = new BlockingCollection<object>();
public YourCode()
{
var thread = new Thread(StartConsuming);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
public void Produce(object item)
{
queue.Add(item);
}
private void StartConsuming()
{
while (true)
{
object item = queue.Take();
// Add your code to process the item here.
// Do not start another task or thread.
}
}
}

I've used a pattern before that creates a sort of 'on-demand' queue consumer (based on consuming from a ConcurrentQueue):
private void FireAndForget(Action fire)
{
_firedEvents.Enqueue(fire);
lock (_taskLock)
{
if (_launcherTask == null)
{
_launcherTask = new Task(LaunchEvents);
_launcherTask.ContinueWith(EventsComplete);
_launcherTask.Start();
}
}
}
private void LaunchEvents()
{
Action nextEvent;
while (_firedEvents.TryDequeue(out nextEvent))
{
if (_synchronized)
{
var syncEvent = nextEvent;
_mediator._syncContext.Send(state => syncEvent(), null);
}
else
{
nextEvent();
}
lock (_taskLock)
{
if (_firedEvents.Count == 0)
{
_launcherTask = null;
break;
}
}
}
}
private void EventsComplete(Task task)
{
if (task.IsFaulted && task.Exception != null)
{
// Do something with task Exception here
}
}

Namedpipe to list while being able to read or use that list?

Let's say I have a list and am streaming data from a namedpipe to that list.
hypothetical sample:
private void myStreamingThread()
{
while(mypipe.isconnected)
{
if (mypipe.hasdata)
myList.add(mypipe.data);
}
}
Then on another thread I need to read that list every 1000ms for example:
private void myListReadingThread()
{
while(isStarted)
{
if (myList.count > 0)
{
//do whatever I need to.
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
My priority here is to be able to read the list every 1000 ms and do whatever I need with the list but at the same time it is very important to be able to get the new data from it that comes from the pipe.
What is a good method to come with this ?
Forgot to mention I am tied to .NET 3.5

I would recommend using a Queue with a lock.
Queue<string> myQueue = new Queue<string>();
private void myStreamingThread()
{
while(mypipe.isconnected)
{
if (mypipe.hasdata)
{
lock (myQueue)
{
myQueue.add(mypipe.data);
}
}
}
}
If you want to empty the queue every 1000 ms, do not use Thread.Sleep. Use a timer instead.
System.Threading.Timer t = new Timer(myListReadingProc, null, 1000, 1000);
private void myListReadingProc(object s)
{
while (myQueue.Count > 0)
{
lock (myQueue)
{
string item = myQueue.Dequeue();
// do whatever
}
}
}
Note that the above assumes that the queue is only being read by one thread. If multiple threads are reading, then there's a race condition. But the above will work with a single reader and one or more writers.

I would suggest using a ConcurrentQueue (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd267265.aspx). If you use a simple List<> then you will encourter a lot threading issues.
The other practice would be to use a mutex called outstandingWork and wait on it instead of Thread.Sleep(). Then when you enqueue some work you pulse outstandingWork. This means that you sleep when no work is available but start processing work immediately instead of sleep the entire 1 second.
Edit
As #Prix pointed out, you are using .Net 3.5. So you cannot use ConcurrentQueue. Use the Queue class with the following
Queue<Work> queue;
AutoResetEvent outstandingWork = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void Enqueue(Work work)
{
lock (queue)
{
queue.Enqueue(work);
outstandingWork.Set();
}
}
Work DequeMaybe()
{
lock (queue)
{
if (queue.Count == 0) return null;
return queue.Dequeue();
}
}
void DoWork()
{
while (true)
{
Work work = DequeMaybe();
if (work == null)
{
outstandingWork.WaitOne();
continue;
}
// Do the work.
}
}