Good afternoon,
I'm trying to fire an ICommand in the viewmodel... FROM the viewmodel, instead of from the UI.
The command works fine from the UI xaml, however, in this different scenario, it does not.
private DispatcherTimer telTimer;
public RelayCommand StartT_Command { get { return new RelayCommand(Exe_StartT_Command); } }
void Exe_StartT_Command(object parameter)
{
if (telTimer != null && telTimer.IsEnabled)
{
telTimer.Stop();
return;
}
telTimer = new DispatcherTimer();
telTimer.Tick += new EventHandler(TelTimerTick);
telTimer.Interval = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, 10);
telTimer.Start();
}
private void TelTimerTick(object sender, EventArgs e) //Every Tick
{
Data.Te(Td);
}
Like I said, it runs fine from the UI, however, when called (see below) it runs all the way through telTimer.Start(); and then ... doesn't.
void KeyDown(int vKey)
{
if (vKey == 0x6A) //Num Pad * Key
{
this.StartT_Command.Execute(null);
}
}
Any ideas??
Thanks in advance.
EDIT1: I checked .IsEnabled, and the timer IS enabled. However, TelTimerTick() is not running.
EDIT2: I didn't mention that KeyDown is being called from different Thread. Would that have an affect on the event hitting TelTimerTick()?
I'm not quite sure if I follow, but if you just want to invoke some command from your viewmodel?
As MvGarnagle points out in his answer, your are allocating a new command everytime, do what he does or:
private ICommand startCommand;
public ICommand StartTCommand
{
get { return startCommand ?? (startCommand = new RelayCommand(ExeStartTCommand)); }
}
EDIT
DispatcherTimer telTimer; // Not allocated
void ExeStartTCommand()
{
// May be null
if telTimer!=null && telTimer.IsEnabled)
{
telTimer.Stop();
return;
}
telTimer = new DispatcherTimer();
telTimer.Tick += TelTimerTick;
telTimer.Interval = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, 10);
telTimer.Start();
}
private void TelTimerTick(object sender, EventArgs e) //Every Tick
{
Data.Te(Td);
}
In your viewmodel just call ExeStartTCommand directly, don't fire the command, it's no need for that.
Now If this was a DO like a custom control, you would have to fire Commands so the views using the controls would consume these commands or more common, routed events.
EDIT:
Now for the code
// how is this hooked up? W32 wrap?
void KeyDown(int vKey)
{
if (vKey == 0x6A) //Num Pad * Key
// Have the dispatchers in your viewmodelbaseclass, this is just for simplicity
App.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(ExeStartTCommand));
}
You should really have a Dispatcher in your baseclass that's set to the dispatcher you want it to run on, and use that property instead of the one above. If you are dealing with a threading issue I need more context from you, kind of shooting in the dark here :)
Cheers,
Stian
Related
I am writing a tool which switchs between a lot of states. For some events I need to be sure they wont get executed a second time while the called function (inside the event) is running. This is how I managed it before:
// Global variables //
public bool func1IsRunning = false;
public bool func2IsRunning = false;
...
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(!func1IsRunning)
{
func1();
func1IsRunning = false;
}
}
public void func1()
{
func1IsRunning = true;
// some code in here //
}
But with every extension of my tool the list of the global variables grows up. Also the events and functions getting less clear to read.
Isnt there a way like this(?):
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(DoubleClick.IsHandled)
{
func1();
}
}
public void func1()
{
// some code in here //
// ................. //
DoubleClick.IsHandled = true; // at the end of the function //
}
So what I am looking for is a way to determine if an event is still running or not. My code is working, im just unhappy with how it looks like.
Any ideas?
UPDATE 1
I decided to use Steve's answer as it solves my problem by the clearest way.
Anyway it is NOT running correctly for now.
Here is how my code looks like:
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
listView.DoubleClick -= new EventHandler(listView_DoubleClick);
itemEdit();
}
finally
{
listView.DoubleClick += new EventHandler(listView_DoubleClick);
}
}
The code above is NOT disabling the handler.
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
listView.DoubleClick -= listView_DoubleClick;
itemEdit();
}
finally
{
listView.DoubleClick += listView_DoubleClick;
}
}
This code is also not disabling the handler.
This is the line where the handler gets enabled (MainForm.Designer.cs):
this.listView.DoubleClick += new System.EventHandler(this.listView_DoubleClick);
There are no errors raised. The event just gets fired again and again. Where is the problem?
UPDATE 2:
As Sinatr asked in the comments below if my function is really waiting or just enabling user input he discovered where the mistake was made.
Steve's answer is correct according to my wrong written question. Thanks a lot to all of you guys.
Just disable the event handler
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
listView.DoubleClick -= listView_DoubleClick;
// Now, even if func1 causes a DoubleClick event,
// or user manages to trigger a DobuleClick
// there is no event registered and this code could
// reentered until you exit from func1.
func1();
}
finally
{
// Important part. the finally block is required
// because you should readd the event handler
// ALSO in case an exception occurs in func1
// and it is not handled there
listView.DoubleClick += listView_DoubleClick;
}
}
EDIT
Looking at your comment I suspect that this DoubleClick event is assigned to more than one control. If this is the case, using the global listView global instance of a listview doesn't disable the double click on other controls that are linked to the same code.
If this is the case then you need a more generic approach
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Control c = sender as Control;
try
{
if(c != null)
{
c.DoubleClick -= listView_DoubleClick;
// Now, even if func1 causes a DoubleClick event,
// or user manages to trigger a DobuleClick
// there is no event registered and this code could
// reentered until you exit from func1.
func1();
}
}
finally
{
// Important part. the finally block is required
// because you should readd the event handler
// ALSO in case an exception occurs in func1
// and it is not handled there
if(c != null) c.DoubleClick += listView_DoubleClick;
}
}
Of course, this is just to enable/disable DoubleClicks events, it cannot works if you assign this event handler to other standard events like Click that have the same signature (object sender, EventArgs e)
How about something like the following using locks:
private object globalLock = new object();
private Dictionary<int, object> lockObjects = new Dictionary<int, object>();
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
object lockObject;
lock (globalLock) // to avoid two threads creating the object
{
if (!lockObjects.ContainsKey(1))
lockObjects.Add(1, new object());
lockObject = lockObjects[1];
}
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObject) // enter only if no thread has already entered
{
try { func1(); }
finally { Monitor.Exit(lockObject); }
}
}
This is different to Steve's logic in the matter that it is thread-safe.
A simple state-machine should solve your problem without requiring too many variables. Create an Enum named AppState like this:
enum AppState
{
Ready = 1,
InsideListView1Click = 2,
InsideListView1DoubleClick = 3
InsideListView2Click = 4,
InsideListView2DoubleClick = 5
}
This enum could grow as you add new controls and/or event-handlers to your application. Now use a single global variable that keeps track of the application state and modify it inside event-handlers appropriately:
private AppState m_State = AppState.Ready;
And in the event-handlers you would do:
private void ListView1_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock
{
if(m_State != AppState.Ready)
return;
else
m_State = AppState.InsideListView1DoubleClick;
}
//Do your stuff
m_State = AppState.Ready;
}
This way newer calls will be ignored instead of being queued. If you expect to be in multiple states at the same time, you could apply [Flags] attribute on this enum as well. Also note that enums are thread-safe and evaluating them is atomic, so multi-threading shouldn't be a problem either.
My application cannot access a specific menu item unless some condition is true (DataRepository.IsAllDataLoaded). I came up with this code, which works great. It checks for the condition first. If it is not ready, it calls a timer, which waits some milliseconds and call the same method again. The Timer needs an ElapsedEventHandler.
public void FirstMenuItem_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
if (!DataRepository.IsAllDataLoaded)
{
WaitForDataLoading(FirstTimedEvent);
}
else
{
Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
IndividualEntryWindow Window = new IndividualEntryWindow();
Window.Show();
}));
}
}
private void FirstTimedEvent(object source, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
FirstMenuItem_Click(null, null);
}
private static void WaitForDataLoading(ElapsedEventHandler timerEvent)
{
Timer t = new Timer();
t.Interval = 0.2;
t.AutoReset = false;
t.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(timerEvent);
t.Start();
}
Initially, the FirstMenuItem_Click was the only method. I had to add FirstTimedEvent handler for my timer. Is there a way to avoid creating that ElapsedEventHandler? Can I create it inline in my FirstMenuItem_Click method?
I now have to use that same pattern for many other Item_Click methods. I wish I don't have to create a ElapsedEventHandler for each Item_Click method.
Use an anonymous lambda expression:
WaitForDataLoading((s,e) => FirstMenuItem_Click(null, null));
You appear to be using WPF, based on your use of the Dispatcher class. That being the case, there are nicer means for you to control the access to your UI.
Two of these are:
bind your menu's Enabled property to ViewModel class, which would have a property to indicate whether the menu should be available. When your long-running job is complete, set the property to true and the menu will be enabled.
use an ICommand to drive the behaviour of your menu. The command's CanExecute return false while your long-running job is active, which will cause the menu to automatically be disabled until the job is complete.
It's worth noting that this will subtly change the behaviour of your menu - but not, I think, in a bad way. Your current code will wait for the job to complete before showing the dialog - but there's nothing to stop the user clicking the menu again in the meantime. These multiple clicks will each wait for the job to complete, and each display their own dialog when the job completes. In a trivial case this might mean that I see multiple dialogs appear; in a severe case the multiple timers that you're creating might badly affect the performance of the application.
Either of the methods suggested above would prevent the menu from being clicked while the job is running, which is not quite your current behaviour but, I think, would make more sense from a usability perspective.
In the following code you can call the method CheckDataShowWindow() anytime you wish to show the windows when the data is ready. If you want to add it to another cick handler, you can just make another like so:
public void Another_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
CheckDataShowWindow();
}
Main code:
public void FirstMenuItem_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
CheckDataShowWindow();
}
private void CheckDataShowWindow()
{
if (!DataRepository.IsAllDataLoaded)
{
Timer t = new Timer();
t.Interval = 0.2;
t.AutoReset = false;
t.Elapsed += (s,e) => CheckDataShowWindow();
t.Start();
}
else
{
Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
IndividualEntryWindow Window = new IndividualEntryWindow();
Window.Show();
}));
}
}
Update
If you can edit the code of the datarepository you should add an event for when the data is done loading.
public delegate void DoneLoadingHandler(object sender, EventArgs e);
public class DataRepository
{
public event DoneLoadingHandler DoneLoading;
//Your loading function
private void LoadAllData()
{
//Load like you do now
//Now fire the event that loading is done.
if(DoneLoading != null)
DoneLoading(this, new EventArgs());
}
}
Now in your other class:
public void FirstMenuItem_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
CheckDataShowWindow();
}
private bool AllReadyWaiting = false;
private void CheckDataShowWindow()
{
if (!DataRepository.IsAllDataLoaded)
{
if(!AllReadyWaiting)
{
DataRepository.DoneLoading += (s,e) => ShowWindow();
AllReadyWaiting = true;
}
}
else
{
ShowWindow();
}
}
private void ShowWindow()
{
Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
IndividualEntryWindow Window = new IndividualEntryWindow();
Window.Show();
}));
}
I'm implementing a visual version of Tracert (as a learning exercise) in WPF where results go to a listbox. The issues are (1) the listbox bound to tracertDataView is not updating, but (2) my entire application hangs.
I'm sure #2 is a threading issue but I'm not sure how to correct it (in the right way). In addition I'm not sure my technique of updating / binding the results of "DoTrace" are correct.
Here is my datasource in App.xaml
<Window.Resources>
<CollectionViewSource
Source="{Binding Source={x:Static Application.Current}, Path=TracertResultNodes}"
x:Key="tracertDataView" />
</Window.Resources>
App.xaml.cs
public partial class App : Application
{
private ObservableCollection<TracertNode> tracertResultNodes = new ObservableCollection<TracertNode>();
public void AppStartup(object sender, StartupEventArgs e)
{
// NOTE: Load sample data does work correctly.. and displays on the screen.
// subsequent updates do not display
LoadSampleData();
}
private void LoadSampleData()
{
TracertResultNodes = new ObservableCollection<TracertNode>();
TracertNode t = new TracertNode();
t.Address = new System.Net.IPAddress(0x2414188f);
t.RoundTripTime = 30;
t.Status = System.Net.NetworkInformation.IPStatus.BadRoute;
TracertResultNodes.Add(t);
}
public ObservableCollection<TracertNode> TracertResultNodes
{
get { return this.tracertResultNodes; }
set { this.tracertResultNodes = value; }
}
}
Here is the MainWindow code
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
CollectionViewSource tracertDataView;
TraceWrapper _tracertWrapper = null;
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
_tracertWrapper = new TraceWrapper();
tracertDataView = (CollectionViewSource)(this.Resources["tracertDataView"]);
}
private void DoTrace_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
((App)Application.Current).TracertResultNodes = _tracertWrapper.Results;
_tracertWrapper.DoTrace("8.8.8.8", 30, 50);
}
}
FYI Internal implementation Detail of instance object "traceWrapper.DoTrace"
/// <summary>
/// Trace a host. Note that this object internally calls the Async implementation of .NET's PING.
// It works perfectly fine in a CMD host, but not in WPF
/// </summary>
public ObservableCollection<TracertNode> DoTrace(string HostOrIP, int maxHops, int TimeOut)
{
tracert = new Tracert();
// The following is triggered for every host that is found, or upon timeout
// (up to 30 times by default)
AutoResetEvent wait = new AutoResetEvent(false);
tracert.waiter = wait;
tracert.HostNameOrAddress = HostOrIP;
tracert.Trace();
this.Results = tracert.NodeList;
while (tracert.IsDone == false)
{
wait.WaitOne();
IsDone = tracert.IsDone;
}
return tracert.NodeList;
}
I don't understand how u used AutoResetEvent, i guess it is not supposed to be used in this way :)
But since Trace run already in another thread, are you sure there is not an event "OnTracertComplete" or something like that in your Tracert class?
If there is not, why you just don't put a DispatchTimer into your application?
That timer would periodically poll until tracert.IsDone becomes true.
If you block the execution of the application thread until an operation completes, you block the execution of the window event loop so window will never be updated.
Another important thing: you cannot update ObservableCollections from another thread.
Be careful and be sure that everything that is updated in the WPF window is executed from the same thread of the window. Don't know what your Trace class do exactly, but your problem here seems to be of course the wait loop, that don't makes sense in a GUI application.
Use notification events or a timer to poll the result. A timer with 1 second resolution seems good to me for this particular implementation and the performance inpact is absolutely minimal.
This is a possible implementation if you are able to modify the Tracert class.
public delegate void TracertCallbacHandler(Tracert sender, TracertNode newNode);
public class Tracert
{
public event TracertCallbacHandler NewNodeFound;
public event EventHandler TracertCompleted;
public void Trace()
{
....
}
// This function gets called in tracert thread\async method.
private void FunctionCalledInThreadWhenPingCompletes(TracertNode newNode)
{
var handler = this.NewNodeFound;
if (handler != null)
handler(this, newNode);
}
// This function gets called in tracert thread\async methods when everything ends.
private void FunctionCalledWhenEverythingDone()
{
var handler = this.TracertCompleted;
if (handler != null)
handler(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
And here is the code to run the tracert,
This is TracertWrapper.
// Keep the observable collection as a field.
private ObservableCollection<TracertNode> pTracertNodes;
// Keep the instance of the running tracert as a field, we need it.
private Tracert pTracert;
public bool IsTracertRunning
{
get { return this.pTracert != null; }
}
public ObservableCollection<TracertNode> DoTrace(string hostOrIP, int maxHops, int timeOut)
{
// If we are not already running a tracert...
if (this.pTracert == null)
{
// Clear or creates the list of tracert nodes.
if (this.pTracertNodes == null)
this.pTracertNodes = new ObservableCollection<TracertNode>();
else
this.pTracertNodes.Clear();
var tracert = new Tracert();
tracert.HostNameOrAddress = hostOrIP;
tracert.MaxHops = maxHops;
tracert.TimeOut = timeOut;
tracert.NewNodeFound += delegate(Tracert sender, TracertNode newNode)
{
// This method is called inside Tracert thread.
// We need to use synchronization context to execute this method in our main window thread.
SynchronizationContext.Current.Post(delegate(object state)
{
// This method is called inside window thread.
this.OnTracertNodeFound(this.pTracertNodes, newNode);
}, null);
};
tracert.TracertCompleted += delegate(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// This method is called inside Tracert thread.
// We need to use synchronization context to execute this method in our main window thread.
SynchronizationContext.Current.Post(delegate(object state)
{
// This method is called inside window thread.
this.OnTracertCompleted();
}, null);
};
tracert.Trace();
this.pTracert = tracert;
}
return this.pTracertNodes;
}
protected virtual void OnTracertCompleted()
{
// Remove tracert object,
// we need this to let the garbage collector being able to release that objects.
// We need also to allow another traceroute since the previous one completed.
this.pTracert = null;
System.Windows.MessageBox.Show("TraceRoute completed!");
}
protected virtual void OnTracertNodeFound(ObservableCollection<TracertNode> collection, TracertNode newNode)
{
// Add our tracert node.
collection.Add(newNode);
}
The issue is that not only is the listbox not updating, but my entire application hangs.
This is probably due to the AutoResetEvent blocking in DoTrace. You explicitly call Wait.WaitOne(); on the event handle, but as far as I can tell, never Set() it. This will cause the application to hang forever as soon as you call Wait.WaitOne().
It sounds like tracert.Trace() is an asynchronous method. Does it include some form of callback/event to notify you upon completion? If so, you should use that, not poll in a loop, to determine when it's complete.
(1) the listbox bound to tracertDataView is not updating
You won't see the updates to your listbox, as you're assigning a new collection to the TracertResultNodes property, the binding in this case simply does not work, because a new collection was assigned.
In addition to ensuring that the collection is updated in the same thread as outlined by Salvatore below, you should only add or remove items from the existing collection, and NOT assign the new one generated by your DoTrace function.
private void DoTrace_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
foreach(var traceNode in _tracertWrapper.Results)
{
((App)Application.Current).TracertResultNodes.Add(traceNode);
}
_tracertWrapper.DoTrace("8.8.8.8", 30, 50);
}
If you do assign a new one, then you'd need to implement INotifyPropertyChanged on your App class, am not sure how (or whether) that would work though (I have not tried this before).
This is a fictional example but I was wandering what happens if the InitialiseTimer function gets called twice. Does the timer elapsed function get triggered twice. Will this change if the functions are made static?
private static void InitialiseTimer()
{
TheTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
TheTimer.Interval = 400;
TheTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(TheTimer_Elapsed);
TheTimer.AutoReset = false;
}
public void TheTimer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
//Do stuff in here
}
I was going to use below to prevent this
Has an event handler already been added?
Thanks,
Richard
If you register the event handler twice, it will be invoked twice every time the event is raised.
This won't change if you make TheTimer_Elapsed static, because you'll still hold two references to this static method.
In most cases there's no need to write compicated things like what Blair Conrad posted in the question you linked to. Just don't forget to use -= every time you have += and you'll be safe.
I think the following demonstrates the scenario and does indeed fire twice, also propose a simple change (commented code) to the Init method that should fix the behavior. (Not thread safe btw, additional locks would be required)
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var counter = 0;
var ts = new ThreadStart(() =>
{
Foo.Fired += (o, e) =>
{
counter++;
};
Foo.InitialiseTimer();
Foo.InitialiseTimer();
});
var t = new Thread(ts);
t.Start();
Thread.Sleep(30);
Assert.AreEqual(1, counter);
}
}
public class Foo
{
private static System.Timers.Timer TheTimer = null;
public static event EventHandler Fired;
public static void InitialiseTimer()
{
//if (TheTimer != null)
//{
// TheTimer.Stop();
// TheTimer = null;
//}
TheTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
TheTimer.Interval = 10;
TheTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(TheTimer_Elapsed);
TheTimer.AutoReset = false;
TheTimer.Start();
}
public static void TheTimer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
//Do stuff in here
if (Fired != null)
{
Fired(null, null);
}
}
}
if you call the method InitialiseTimer twice you will create two Timers each of them will have only one event handler attached but they might elapse both. It's not really about having the method static or not, it's more about the method itself, you could check if TheTimer is null and do the rest only if it's null so you assign it only once.
If event is registered twice you will have two executions.
You can check if event is null, and the problem will be solved.
Static or not, you are recreating the Timer. So you can invoke the InitialiseTimer many, many times without adding more than a single handler. You will end up with many timers though...
I need to be able to delay the event handlers for some controls (like a button) to be fired for example after 1 sec of the actual event (click event for example) .. is this possible by the .net framework ?
I use a timer and call my code from the timer's tick event as below but I am not sure if this is the best approach !
void onButtonClick( ..)
{
timer1.Enabled = true;
}
void onTimerTick( ..)
{
timer.Enabled = false;
CallMyCodeNow();
}
Perhaps you could make a method that creates the timer?
void onButtonClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Delay(1000, (o,a) => MessageBox.Show("Test"));
}
static void Delay(int ms, EventHandler action)
{
var tmp = new Timer {Interval = ms};
tmp.Tick += new EventHandler((o, e) => tmp.Enabled = false);
tmp.Tick += action;
tmp.Enabled = true;
}
Before coming to your question, just having read the summary bit from the main questions page, a timer was exactly what I was going to suggest.
This looks pretty clean to me. It means you can easily "cancel" the delayed event if you need to, by disabling the timer again, for example. It also does everything within the UI thread (but without reentrancy), which makes life a bit simpler than other alternatives might be.
If you're only doing this for one control, the timer approach will work fine. A more robust approach supporting multiple controls and types of events looks something like this:
class Event
{
public DateTime StartTime { get; set; }
public Action Method { get; set; }
public Event(Action method)
{
Method = method;
StartTime = DateTime.Now + TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1);
}
}
Maintain a Queue<Event> in your form and have UI events that need to be delayed add them to the queue, e.g.:
void onButtonClick( ..)
{
EventQueue.Enqueue(new Event(MethodToCall));
}
Make your timer tick 10 times a second or so, and have its Tick event handler look like this:
void onTimerTick()
{
if (EventQueue.Any() && EventQueue.First().StartTime >= DateTime.Now)
{
Event e = EventQueue.Dequeue();
e.Method;
}
}
My solution uses System.Threading.Timer:
public static class ExecuteWithDelay
{
class TimerState
{
public Timer Timer;
}
public static Timer Do(Action action, int dueTime)
{
var state = new TimerState();
state.Timer = new Timer(o =>
{
action();
lock (o) // The locking should prevent the timer callback from trying to free the timer prior to the Timer field having been set.
{
((TimerState)o).Timer.Dispose();
}
}, state, dueTime, -1);
return state.Timer;
}
}
For those limited to .NET 2.0, here is another take on Bengt's helpful solution:
/// <summary>
/// Executes the specified method in a delayed context by utilizing
/// a temporary timer.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="millisecondsToDelay">The milliseconds to delay.</param>
/// <param name="methodToExecute">The method to execute.</param>
public static void DelayedExecute(int millisecondsToDelay, MethodInvoker methodToExecute)
{
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.Interval = millisecondsToDelay;
timer.Tick += delegate
{
// This will be executed on a single (UI) thread, so lock is not necessary
// but multiple ticks may have been queued, so check for enabled.
if (timer.Enabled)
{
timer.Stop();
methodToExecute.Invoke();
timer.Dispose();
}
};
timer.Start();
}
Using Reactive Extensions:
First, install the nuget package
PM> Install-Package Rx-Main
Code:
private void CallMyCodeNow()
{
label1.Text = "reactivated!";
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var o = Observable.FromEventPattern<EventHandler, EventArgs>(
handler => button1.Click += handler
, handler => button1.Click -= handler
)
.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5))
.ObserveOn(SynchronizationContext.Current) // ensure event fires on UI thread
.Subscribe(
ev => CallMyCodeNow()
, ex => MessageBox.Show(ex.Message)
);
}
If you're looking for a more fancy solution, you may want to take a look at my Reactive LINQ project. The link doesn't show how to solve the particular problem you're having, but it should be possible to solve in quite an elegant style using the technique described there (in the whole 4-article series).
You can use:
Thread.Sleep(1000);
That will pause the current Thread for one second. So I would do that...
Best Regards!