We Keep Coding

BlockingCollection where the consumers are also producers

I have a bunch of requests to process, and during the processing of those requests, more "sub-requests" can be generated and added to the same blocking collection. The consumers add sub-requests to the queue.
It's hard to know when to exit the consuming loop: clearly no thread can call BlockingCollection.CompleteAdding as the other threads may add something to the collection. You also cannot exit the consuming loop just because the BlockingCollection is empty as another thread may have just read the final remaining request from the BlockingCollection and will be about to start generating more requests - the Count of the BlockingCollection will then increase from zero again.
My only idea on this so far is to use a Barrier - when all threads reach the Barrier, there can't be anything left in the BlockingCollection and no thread can be generating new requests. Here is my code - is this an acceptable approach? (and please note: this is highly contrived block of code modelling a much more complex situation: no programmer really writes code that processes random strings 😊 )
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Threading;
namespace Barrier1
{
class Program
{
private static readonly Random random = new Random();
private static void Main()
{
var bc = new BlockingCollection<string>();
AddRandomStringsToBc(bc, 1000, true);
int nTasks = 4;
var barrier = new Barrier(nTasks);
Action a = () => DoSomething(bc, barrier);
var actions = Enumerable.Range(0, nTasks).Select(x => a).ToArray();
Parallel.Invoke(actions);
}
private static IEnumerable<char> GetC(bool includeA)
{
var startChar = includeA ? 'A' : 'B';
var add = includeA ? 24 : 25;
while (true)
{
yield return (char)(startChar + random.Next(add));
}
}
private static void DoSomething(BlockingCollection<string> bc, Barrier barrier)
{
while (true)
{
if (bc.TryTake(out var str))
{
Console.WriteLine(str);
if (str[0] == 'A')
{
Console.WriteLine("Adding more strings...");
AddRandomStringsToBc(bc, 100);
}
}
else
{
// Can't exit the loop here just because there is nothing in the collection.
// A different thread may be just about to call AddRandomStringsToBc:
if (barrier.SignalAndWait(100))
{
break;
}
}
}
}
private static void AddRandomStringsToBc(BlockingCollection<string> bc, int n, bool startWithA = false, bool sleep = false)
{
var collection = Enumerable.Range(0, n).Select(x => string.Join("", GetC(startWithA).Take(5)));
foreach (var c in collection)
{
bc.Add(c);
}
}
}
}

Here is a collection similar to the BlockingCollection<T>, with the difference that it completes automatically instead of relying on manually calling the CompleteAdding method. The condition for the automatic completion is that the collection is empty, and all the consumers are in a waiting state.
The implementation is based on your clever idea of using a Barrier as a mechanism for checking the auto-complete condition. It's not perfect because it relies on pooling, which is taking place when the collection becomes empty and has some consumers that are still active. On the other hand it allows to exploit all the existing functionality of the BlockingCollection<T> class, instead of rewriting it from scratch:
/// <summary>
/// A blocking collection that completes automatically when it's empty, and all
/// consuming enumerables are in a waiting state.
/// </summary>
public class AutoCompleteBlockingCollection<T> : IEnumerable<T>, IDisposable
{
private readonly BlockingCollection<T> _queue;
private readonly Barrier _barrier;
private volatile bool _autoCompleteStarted;
private volatile int _intervalMilliseconds = 500;
public AutoCompleteBlockingCollection(int boundedCapacity = -1)
{
_queue = boundedCapacity == -1 ? new() : new(boundedCapacity);
_barrier = new(0, _ => _queue.CompleteAdding());
}
public int Count => _queue.Count;
public int BoundedCapacity => _queue.BoundedCapacity;
public bool IsAddingCompleted => _queue.IsAddingCompleted;
public bool IsCompleted => _queue.IsCompleted;
/// <summary>
/// Begin observing the condition for automatic completion.
/// </summary>
public void BeginObservingAutoComplete() => _autoCompleteStarted = true;
/// <summary>
/// Gets or sets how frequently to check for the auto-complete condition.
/// </summary>
public TimeSpan CheckAutoCompleteInterval
{
get { return TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(_intervalMilliseconds); }
set
{
int milliseconds = checked((int)value.TotalMilliseconds);
if (milliseconds < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
_intervalMilliseconds = milliseconds;
}
}
public void Add(T item, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
=> _queue.Add(item, cancellationToken);
public bool TryAdd(T item) => _queue.TryAdd(item);
public IEnumerable<T> GetConsumingEnumerable(
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
{
_barrier.AddParticipant();
try
{
while (true)
{
if (!_autoCompleteStarted)
{
if (_queue.TryTake(out var item, _intervalMilliseconds,
cancellationToken))
yield return item;
}
else
{
if (_queue.TryTake(out var item, 0, cancellationToken))
yield return item;
else if (_barrier.SignalAndWait(_intervalMilliseconds,
cancellationToken))
break;
}
}
}
finally { _barrier.RemoveParticipant(); }
}
IEnumerator<T> IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator()
=> ((IEnumerable<T>)_queue).GetEnumerator();
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
=> ((IEnumerable<T>)_queue).GetEnumerator();
public void Dispose() { _barrier.Dispose(); _queue.Dispose(); }
}
The BeginObservingAutoComplete method should be called after adding the initial items in the collection. Before calling this method, the auto-complete condition is not checked.
The CheckAutoCompleteInterval is 500 milliseconds by default, and it can be configured at any time.
The Take and TryTake methods are missing on purpose. The collection is intended to be consumed via the GetConsumingEnumerable method. This way the collection keeps track of the currently subscribed consumers, in order to know when to auto-complete. Consumers can be added and removed at any time. A consumer can be removed by exiting the foreach loop, either by break/return etc, or by an exception.
Usage example:
private static void Main()
{
var bc = new AutoCompleteBlockingCollection<string>();
AddRandomStringsToBc(bc, 1000, true);
bc.BeginObservingAutoComplete();
Action action = () => DoSomething(bc);
var actions = Enumerable.Repeat(action, 4).ToArray();
Parallel.Invoke(actions);
}
private static void DoSomething(AutoCompleteBlockingCollection<string> bc)
{
foreach (var str in bc.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
Console.WriteLine(str);
if (str[0] == 'A')
{
Console.WriteLine("Adding more strings...");
AddRandomStringsToBc(bc, 100);
}
}
}
The collection is thread-safe, with the exception of the Dispose method.

What should be locked for the same string? [duplicate]

I'm attempting to figure out an issue that has been raised with my ImageProcessor library here where I am getting intermittent file access errors when adding items to the cache.
System.IO.IOException: The process cannot access the file 'D:\home\site\wwwroot\app_data\cache\0\6\5\f\2\7\065f27fc2c8e843443d210a1e84d1ea28bbab6c4.webp' because it is being used by another process.
I wrote a class designed to perform an asynchronous lock based upon a key generated by a hashed url but it seems I have missed something in the implementation.
My locking class
public sealed class AsyncDuplicateLock
{
/// <summary>
/// The collection of semaphore slims.
/// </summary>
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim> SemaphoreSlims
= new ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim>();
/// <summary>
/// Locks against the given key.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="key">
/// The key that identifies the current object.
/// </param>
/// <returns>
/// The disposable <see cref="Task"/>.
/// </returns>
public IDisposable Lock(object key)
{
DisposableScope releaser = new DisposableScope(
key,
s =>
{
SemaphoreSlim locker;
if (SemaphoreSlims.TryRemove(s, out locker))
{
locker.Release();
locker.Dispose();
}
});
SemaphoreSlim semaphore = SemaphoreSlims.GetOrAdd(key, new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1));
semaphore.Wait();
return releaser;
}
/// <summary>
/// Asynchronously locks against the given key.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="key">
/// The key that identifies the current object.
/// </param>
/// <returns>
/// The disposable <see cref="Task"/>.
/// </returns>
public Task<IDisposable> LockAsync(object key)
{
DisposableScope releaser = new DisposableScope(
key,
s =>
{
SemaphoreSlim locker;
if (SemaphoreSlims.TryRemove(s, out locker))
{
locker.Release();
locker.Dispose();
}
});
Task<IDisposable> releaserTask = Task.FromResult(releaser as IDisposable);
SemaphoreSlim semaphore = SemaphoreSlims.GetOrAdd(key, new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1));
Task waitTask = semaphore.WaitAsync();
return waitTask.IsCompleted
? releaserTask
: waitTask.ContinueWith(
(_, r) => (IDisposable)r,
releaser,
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously,
TaskScheduler.Default);
}
/// <summary>
/// The disposable scope.
/// </summary>
private sealed class DisposableScope : IDisposable
{
/// <summary>
/// The key
/// </summary>
private readonly object key;
/// <summary>
/// The close scope action.
/// </summary>
private readonly Action<object> closeScopeAction;
/// <summary>
/// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="DisposableScope"/> class.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="key">
/// The key.
/// </param>
/// <param name="closeScopeAction">
/// The close scope action.
/// </param>
public DisposableScope(object key, Action<object> closeScopeAction)
{
this.key = key;
this.closeScopeAction = closeScopeAction;
}
/// <summary>
/// Disposes the scope.
/// </summary>
public void Dispose()
{
this.closeScopeAction(this.key);
}
}
}
Usage - within a HttpModule
private readonly AsyncDuplicateLock locker = new AsyncDuplicateLock();
using (await this.locker.LockAsync(cachedPath))
{
// Process and save a cached image.
}
Can anyone spot where I have gone wrong? I'm worried that I am misunderstanding something fundamental.
The full source for the library is stored on Github here

As the other answerer noted, the original code is removing the SemaphoreSlim from the ConcurrentDictionary before it releases the semaphore. So, you've got too much semaphore churn going on - they're being removed from the dictionary when they could still be in use (not acquired, but already retrieved from the dictionary).
The problem with this kind of "mapping lock" is that it's difficult to know when the semaphore is no longer necessary. One option is to never dispose the semaphores at all; that's the easy solution, but may not be acceptable in your scenario. Another option - if the semaphores are actually related to object instances and not values (like strings) - is to attach them using ephemerons; however, I believe this option would also not be acceptable in your scenario.
So, we do it the hard way. :)
There are a few different approaches that would work. I think it makes sense to approach it from a reference-counting perspective (reference-counting each semaphore in the dictionary). Also, we want to make the decrement-count-and-remove operation atomic, so I just use a single lock (making the concurrent dictionary superfluous):
public sealed class AsyncDuplicateLock
{
private sealed class RefCounted<T>
{
public RefCounted(T value)
{
RefCount = 1;
Value = value;
}
public int RefCount { get; set; }
public T Value { get; private set; }
}
private static readonly Dictionary<object, RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim>> SemaphoreSlims
= new Dictionary<object, RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim>>();
private SemaphoreSlim GetOrCreate(object key)
{
RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim> item;
lock (SemaphoreSlims)
{
if (SemaphoreSlims.TryGetValue(key, out item))
{
++item.RefCount;
}
else
{
item = new RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim>(new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1));
SemaphoreSlims[key] = item;
}
}
return item.Value;
}
public IDisposable Lock(object key)
{
GetOrCreate(key).Wait();
return new Releaser { Key = key };
}
public async Task<IDisposable> LockAsync(object key)
{
await GetOrCreate(key).WaitAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
return new Releaser { Key = key };
}
private sealed class Releaser : IDisposable
{
public object Key { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim> item;
lock (SemaphoreSlims)
{
item = SemaphoreSlims[Key];
--item.RefCount;
if (item.RefCount == 0)
SemaphoreSlims.Remove(Key);
}
item.Value.Release();
}
}
}

Here is a KeyedLock class that is less convenient and more error prone, but also less allocatey than Stephen Cleary's AsyncDuplicateLock. It maintains internally a pool of SemaphoreSlims, that can be reused by any key after they are released by the previous key. The capacity of the pool is configurable, and by default is 10.
This class is not allocation-free, because the SemaphoreSlim class allocates memory (quite a lot actually) every time the semaphore cannot be acquired synchronously because of contention.
The lock can be requested both synchronously and asynchronously, and can also be requested with cancellation and timeout. These features are provided by exploiting the existing functionality of the SemaphoreSlim class.
public class KeyedLock<TKey>
{
private readonly Dictionary<TKey, (SemaphoreSlim, int)> _perKey;
private readonly Stack<SemaphoreSlim> _pool;
private readonly int _poolCapacity;
public KeyedLock(IEqualityComparer<TKey> keyComparer = null, int poolCapacity = 10)
{
_perKey = new Dictionary<TKey, (SemaphoreSlim, int)>(keyComparer);
_pool = new Stack<SemaphoreSlim>(poolCapacity);
_poolCapacity = poolCapacity;
}
public async Task<bool> WaitAsync(TKey key, int millisecondsTimeout,
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
{
var semaphore = GetSemaphore(key);
bool entered = false;
try
{
entered = await semaphore.WaitAsync(millisecondsTimeout,
cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
finally { if (!entered) ReleaseSemaphore(key, entered: false); }
return entered;
}
public Task WaitAsync(TKey key, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
=> WaitAsync(key, Timeout.Infinite, cancellationToken);
public bool Wait(TKey key, int millisecondsTimeout,
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
{
var semaphore = GetSemaphore(key);
bool entered = false;
try { entered = semaphore.Wait(millisecondsTimeout, cancellationToken); }
finally { if (!entered) ReleaseSemaphore(key, entered: false); }
return entered;
}
public void Wait(TKey key, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
=> Wait(key, Timeout.Infinite, cancellationToken);
public void Release(TKey key) => ReleaseSemaphore(key, entered: true);
private SemaphoreSlim GetSemaphore(TKey key)
{
SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
lock (_perKey)
{
if (_perKey.TryGetValue(key, out var entry))
{
int counter;
(semaphore, counter) = entry;
_perKey[key] = (semaphore, ++counter);
}
else
{
lock (_pool) semaphore = _pool.Count > 0 ? _pool.Pop() : null;
if (semaphore == null) semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
_perKey[key] = (semaphore, 1);
}
}
return semaphore;
}
private void ReleaseSemaphore(TKey key, bool entered)
{
SemaphoreSlim semaphore; int counter;
lock (_perKey)
{
if (_perKey.TryGetValue(key, out var entry))
{
(semaphore, counter) = entry;
counter--;
if (counter == 0)
_perKey.Remove(key);
else
_perKey[key] = (semaphore, counter);
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Key not found.");
}
}
if (entered) semaphore.Release();
if (counter == 0)
{
Debug.Assert(semaphore.CurrentCount == 1);
lock (_pool) if (_pool.Count < _poolCapacity) _pool.Push(semaphore);
}
}
}
Usage example:
var locker = new KeyedLock<string>();
await locker.WaitAsync("Hello");
try
{
await DoSomethingAsync();
}
finally
{
locker.Release("Hello");
}
The implementation uses tuple deconstruction, that requires at least C# 7.
The KeyedLock class could be easily modified to become a KeyedSemaphore, that would allow more than one concurrent operations per key. It would just need a maximumConcurrencyPerKey parameter in the constructor, that would be stored and passed to the constructor of the SemaphoreSlims.
Note: The SemaphoreSlim class when misused it throws a SemaphoreFullException. This happens when the semaphore is released more times than it has been acquired. The KeyedLock implementation of this answer behaves differently in case of misuse: it throws an InvalidOperationException("Key not found."). This happens because when a key is released as many times as it has been acquired, the associated semaphore is removed from the dictionary. If this implementation ever throw a SemaphoreFullException, it would be an indication of a bug.

I wrote a library called AsyncKeyedLock to fix this common problem. The library currently supports using it with the type object (so you can mix different types together) or using generics to get a more efficient solution. It allows for timeouts, cancellation tokens, and also pooling so as to reduce allocations. Underlying it uses a ConcurrentDictionary and also allows for setting the initial capacity and concurrency for this dictionary.
I have benchmarked this against the other solutions provided here and it is more efficient, in terms of speed, memory usage (allocations) as well as scalability (internally it uses the more scalable ConcurrentDictionary). It's being used in a number of systems in production and used by a number of popular libraries.
The source code is available on GitHub and packaged at NuGet.
The approach here is to basically use the ConcurrentDictionary to store an IDisposable object which has a counter on it and a SemaphoreSlim. Once this counter reaches 0, it is removed from the dictionary and either disposed or returned to the pool (if pooling is used). Monitor is used to lock this object when either the counter is being incremented or decremented.
Usage example:
var locker = new AsyncKeyedLocker<string>(o =>
{
o.PoolSize = 20;
o.PoolInitialFill = 1;
});
string key = "my key";
// asynchronous code
using (await locker.LockAsync(key, cancellationToken))
{
...
}
// synchronous code
using (locker.Lock(key))
{
...
}
Download from NuGet.

For a given key,
Thread 1 calls GetOrAdd and adds a new semaphore and acquires it via Wait
Thread 2 calls GetOrAdd and gets the existing semaphore and blocks on Wait
Thread 1 releases the semaphore, only after having called TryRemove, which removed the semaphore from the dictionary
Thread 2 now acquires the semaphore.
Thread 3 calls GetOrAdd for the same key as thread 1 and 2. Thread 2 is still holding the semaphore, but the semaphore is not in the dictionary, so thread 3 creates a new semaphore and both threads 2 and 3 access the same protected resource.
You need to adjust your logic. The semaphore should only be removed from the dictionary when it has no waiters.
Here is one potential solution, minus the async part:
public sealed class AsyncDuplicateLock
{
private class LockInfo
{
private SemaphoreSlim sem;
private int waiterCount;
public LockInfo()
{
sem = null;
waiterCount = 1;
}
// Lazily create the semaphore
private SemaphoreSlim Semaphore
{
get
{
var s = sem;
if (s == null)
{
s = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 1);
var original = Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref sem, null, s);
// If someone else already created a semaphore, return that one
if (original != null)
return original;
}
return s;
}
}
// Returns true if successful
public bool Enter()
{
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref waiterCount) > 1)
{
Semaphore.Wait();
return true;
}
return false;
}
// Returns true if this lock info is now ready for removal
public bool Exit()
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref waiterCount) <= 0)
return true;
// There was another waiter
Semaphore.Release();
return false;
}
}
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, LockInfo> activeLocks = new ConcurrentDictionary<object, LockInfo>();
public static IDisposable Lock(object key)
{
// Get the current info or create a new one
var info = activeLocks.AddOrUpdate(key,
(k) => new LockInfo(),
(k, v) => v.Enter() ? v : new LockInfo());
DisposableScope releaser = new DisposableScope(() =>
{
if (info.Exit())
{
// Only remove this exact info, in case another thread has
// already put its own info into the dictionary
((ICollection<KeyValuePair<object, LockInfo>>)activeLocks)
.Remove(new KeyValuePair<object, LockInfo>(key, info));
}
});
return releaser;
}
private sealed class DisposableScope : IDisposable
{
private readonly Action closeScopeAction;
public DisposableScope(Action closeScopeAction)
{
this.closeScopeAction = closeScopeAction;
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.closeScopeAction();
}
}
}

I rewrote the #StephenCleary answer with this:
public sealed class AsyncLockList {
readonly Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount> Semaphores = new Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount>();
SemaphoreSlim GetOrCreateSemaphore(object key) {
lock (Semaphores) {
if (Semaphores.TryGetValue(key, out var item)) {
item.IncrementCount();
} else {
item = new SemaphoreReferenceCount();
Semaphores[key] = item;
}
return item.Semaphore;
}
}
public IDisposable Lock(object key) {
GetOrCreateSemaphore(key).Wait();
return new Releaser(Semaphores, key);
}
public async Task<IDisposable> LockAsync(object key) {
await GetOrCreateSemaphore(key).WaitAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
return new Releaser(Semaphores, key);
}
sealed class SemaphoreReferenceCount {
public readonly SemaphoreSlim Semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
public int Count { get; private set; } = 1;
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public void IncrementCount() => Count++;
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public void DecrementCount() => Count--;
}
sealed class Releaser : IDisposable {
readonly Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount> Semaphores;
readonly object Key;
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public Releaser(Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount> semaphores, object key) {
Semaphores = semaphores;
Key = key;
}
public void Dispose() {
lock (Semaphores) {
var item = Semaphores[Key];
item.DecrementCount();
if (item.Count == 0)
Semaphores.Remove(Key);
item.Semaphore.Release();
}
}
}
}

Inspired by this previous answer, here is a version that supports async wait:
public class KeyedLock<TKey>
{
private readonly ConcurrentDictionary<TKey, LockInfo> _locks = new();
public int Count => _locks.Count;
public async Task<IDisposable> WaitAsync(TKey key, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
{
// Get the current info or create a new one.
var info = _locks.AddOrUpdate(key,
// Add
k => new LockInfo(),
// Update
(k, v) => v.Enter() ? v : new LockInfo());
try
{
await info.Semaphore.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
return new Releaser(() => Release(key, info, true));
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
// The semaphore wait was cancelled, release the lock.
Release(key, info, false);
throw;
}
}
private void Release(TKey key, LockInfo info, bool isCurrentlyLocked)
{
if (info.Leave())
{
// This was the last lock for the key.
// Only remove this exact info, in case another thread has
// already put its own info into the dictionary
// Note that this call to Remove(entry) is in fact thread safe.
var entry = new KeyValuePair<TKey, LockInfo>(key, info);
if (((ICollection<KeyValuePair<TKey, LockInfo>>)_locks).Remove(entry))
{
// This exact info was removed.
info.Dispose();
}
}
else if (isCurrentlyLocked)
{
// There is another waiter.
info.Semaphore.Release();
}
}
private class LockInfo : IDisposable
{
private SemaphoreSlim _semaphore = null;
private int _refCount = 1;
public SemaphoreSlim Semaphore
{
get
{
// Lazily create the semaphore.
var s = _semaphore;
if (s is null)
{
s = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
// Assign _semaphore if its current value is null.
var original = Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _semaphore, s, null);
// If someone else already created a semaphore, return that one
if (original is not null)
{
s.Dispose();
return original;
}
}
return s;
}
}
// Returns true if successful
public bool Enter()
{
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref _refCount) > 1)
{
return true;
}
// This lock info is not valid anymore - its semaphore is or will be disposed.
return false;
}
// Returns true if this lock info is now ready for removal
public bool Leave()
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref _refCount) <= 0)
{
// This was the last lock
return true;
}
// There is another waiter
return false;
}
public void Dispose() => _semaphore?.Dispose();
}
private sealed class Releaser : IDisposable
{
private readonly Action _dispose;
public Releaser(Action dispose) => _dispose = dispose;
public void Dispose() => _dispose();
}
}

Invoke EventHandler every x seconds given the following code

As of now, the following code calls the Tick?.Invoke method every second. Is there a way to easily change the code so that it gets called every 5 seconds for example?
private void Timer()
{
var now = DateTime.Now;
int lastSecond = now.Second;
int lastDay = now.Day;
while (goOnTiming)
{
now = DateTime.Now;
if (now.Second != lastSecond)
{
Tick?.Invoke(this, new TickEventArgs(now: now));
lastSecond = now.Second;
}
if (lastDay != now.Day)
{
NewDay?.Invoke(this, new TickEventArgs(now: now));
lastDay = now.Day;
}
}
}

You could use a builtin timer class, there are various.
You could also use my base class for an async ticker:
/// <summary>
/// Base class for an async ticker (runs a function every period or 'tick')
/// Adapted from <see href="https://stackoverflow.com/a/62724908/4122889"/>
/// NOTE this class was not designed to handle UI in any way - it could, but test beforehand!
/// </summary>
public abstract class TickerBase
{
#region Properties and Fields
private readonly ILogger<TickerBase> _logger;
public TimeSpan Interval { get; protected set; }
private readonly Action<ILogger, string, Exception> _tickerStarted = LoggerMessage.Define<string>(LogLevel.Trace, new EventId(0, nameof(_tickerStarted)), "Starting ticker: {0}");
private readonly Action<ILogger, string, Exception> _tickerCancelled = LoggerMessage.Define<string>(LogLevel.Trace, new EventId(0, nameof(_tickerCancelled)), "Cancellation requested: {0}");
#endregion
#region Construction and Destruction
protected TickerBase(ILoggerFactory loggerFactory, TimeSpan interval)
{
if(interval == default) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(interval), "Interval was its default value");
_logger = loggerFactory.CreateLogger<TickerBase>() ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(loggerFactory));
Interval = interval;
}
#endregion
#region Starting
/// <summary>
/// Start the ticker. Don't await this function, it will run indefinitely.
/// Be mindful of exceptions.
/// Calling this function more than once will start more tasks and thus more tickers.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="ctx">cancellation token to cancel the timer</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public async Task StartAsync(CancellationToken ctx = default)
{
// Log starting and stopping of ticker(s)
_tickerStarted(_logger, GetType().Name, null);
ctx.Register(() => _tickerCancelled(_logger, GetType().Name, null));
while (true)
{
var delayTask = Task.Delay(Interval, ctx);
await OnTickAsync(ctx)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
await delayTask
.ConfigureAwait(false);
ctx.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
// ReSharper disable once FunctionNeverReturns Reason: as designed
}
protected abstract Task OnTickAsync(CancellationToken ctx = default);
}
#endregion
}

Use timers, you can use system timers or form timers. Below an example of a system timer:
private void CreateTimer()
{
var timer = new System.Threading.Timer(timerCallback);
timer.Change(0, 5000);
}
private void timerCallback(object state)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("The timer called me");
}
BTW probably you take a lot of CPU with your approach.

Processing data by multiple threads simultaneously

We have an application that regularly receives multimedia messages, and should reply to them.
We currently do this with a single thread, first receiving messages, and then processing them one by one. This does the job, but is slow.
So we're now thinking of doing the same process but with multiple threads sumultaneously.
Any simple way to allow parallel processing of the incoming records, yet avoid erroneously processing the same record by two threads?

Any simple way to allow parallel processing of the incoming records, yet avoid erroneously processing the same record by two threads?
Yes it is actually not too hard, what you are wanting to do is called the "Producer-Consumer model"
If your message receiver could only handle one thread at a time but your message "processor" can work on multiple messages at once you just need to use a BlockingCollection to store the work that needs to be processed
public sealed class MessageProcessor : IDisposable
{
public MessageProcessor()
: this(-1)
{
}
public MessageProcessor(int maxThreadsForProcessing)
{
_maxThreadsForProcessing = maxThreadsForProcessing;
_messages = new BlockingCollection<Message>();
_cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
_messageProcessorThread = new Thread(ProcessMessages);
_messageProcessorThread.IsBackground = true;
_messageProcessorThread.Name = "Message Processor Thread";
_messageProcessorThread.Start();
}
public int MaxThreadsForProcessing
{
get { return _maxThreadsForProcessing; }
}
private readonly BlockingCollection<Message> _messages;
private readonly CancellationTokenSource _cts;
private readonly Thread _messageProcessorThread;
private bool _disposed = false;
private readonly int _maxThreadsForProcessing;
/// <summary>
/// Add a new message to be queued up and processed in the background.
/// </summary>
public void ReceiveMessage(Message message)
{
_messages.Add(message);
}
/// <summary>
/// Signals the system to stop processing messages.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="finishQueue">Should the queue of messages waiting to be processed be allowed to finish</param>
public void Stop(bool finishQueue)
{
_messages.CompleteAdding();
if(!finishQueue)
_cts.Cancel();
//Wait for the message processor thread to finish it's work.
_messageProcessorThread.Join();
}
/// <summary>
/// The background thread that processes messages in the system
/// </summary>
private void ProcessMessages()
{
try
{
Parallel.ForEach(_messages.GetConsumingEnumerable(),
new ParallelOptions()
{
CancellationToken = _cts.Token,
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = MaxThreadsForProcessing
},
ProcessMessage);
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
//Don't care that it happened, just don't want it to bubble up as a unhandeled exception.
}
}
private void ProcessMessage(Message message, ParallelLoopState loopState)
{
//Here be dragons! (or your code to process a message, your choice :-))
//Use if(_cts.Token.IsCancellationRequested || loopState.ShouldExitCurrentIteration) to test if
// we should quit out of the function early for a graceful shutdown.
}
public void Dispose()
{
if(!_disposed)
{
if(_cts != null && _messages != null && _messageProcessorThread != null)
Stop(true); //This line will block till all queued messages have been processed, if you want it to be quicker you need to call `Stop(false)` before you dispose the object.
if(_cts != null)
_cts.Dispose();
if(_messages != null)
_messages.Dispose();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
_disposed = true;
}
}
~MessageProcessor()
{
//Nothing to do, just making FXCop happy.
}
}
I highly recommend you read the free book Patterns for Parallel Programming, it goes in to some detail about this. There is a entire section explaining the Producer-Consumer model in detail.
UPDATE: There are some performance issues with GetConsumingEnumerable() and Parallel.ForEach(, instead use the library ParallelExtensionsExtras and it's new extension method GetConsumingPartitioner()
public static Partitioner<T> GetConsumingPartitioner<T>(
this BlockingCollection<T> collection)
{
return new BlockingCollectionPartitioner<T>(collection);
}
private class BlockingCollectionPartitioner<T> : Partitioner<T>
{
private BlockingCollection<T> _collection;
internal BlockingCollectionPartitioner(
BlockingCollection<T> collection)
{
if (collection == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("collection");
_collection = collection;
}
public override bool SupportsDynamicPartitions {
get { return true; }
}
public override IList<IEnumerator<T>> GetPartitions(
int partitionCount)
{
if (partitionCount < 1)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("partitionCount");
var dynamicPartitioner = GetDynamicPartitions();
return Enumerable.Range(0, partitionCount).Select(_ =>
dynamicPartitioner.GetEnumerator()).ToArray();
}
public override IEnumerable<T> GetDynamicPartitions()
{
return _collection.GetConsumingEnumerable();
}
}

How to run dependent Tasks parallelly in Multiple threads?

I have a set of huge taks to be performed in c#. Each calcuation will produce a resultant data which i want to write into a file (i am using SQLite). Currently i am doing this in a sequential way like this [Task1 -> FileSaving1], [Task2 -> FileSaving2],. and so on.
But my priority is to complete all the calculations first, so i want to run the calculation in parallel in one thread and the file saving to be done in another. FileSaving thread will be signalled everytime when the calculation is over and the data is ready to be written. FileSaving can be sequential or Parallel.
How to acheive this in C#? I am using .Net 4.0.
Please provide me with some example if possible.

You can use a BlockingCollection<T> to help with this.
The tricky thing is that you want several threads processing work items, but they can produce their output in a random order so you need to multiplex the output when writing it (assuming you want to write the data in the same order as it would have been written if you used the old single-threaded solution).
I wrote a class to do this a while back.
It assumes that you can encapsulate each "work item" in an instance of a class. Those instances are added to a work queue; then multiple threads (via Task) can remove work items from the work queue, process them, and then output them to a priority queue.
Finally, another thread can remove the completed work items from the completed queue, being careful to multiplex them so that it removes the items in the same order as they were originally added to the work queue.
This implementation creates and manages the threads for you. You need to tell it how many worker threads to use, and supply it delegates to provide new work items (Read()), process each work item (Process()) and output each work item (Write()).
Only the Process() delegate is called by multiple threads.
Note that if you don't care about the order, you can avoid all this stuff and pretty much use BlockingCollection directly.
Here's the code:
public sealed class ParallelWorkProcessor<T> where T: class // T is the work item type.
{
public delegate T Read(); // Called by only one thread.
public delegate T Process(T block); // Called simultaneously by multiple threads.
public delegate void Write(T block); // Called by only one thread.
public ParallelWorkProcessor(Read read, Process process, Write write, int numWorkers = 0)
{
_read = read;
_process = process;
_write = write;
numWorkers = (numWorkers > 0) ? numWorkers : Environment.ProcessorCount;
_workPool = new SemaphoreSlim(numWorkers*2);
_inputQueue = new BlockingCollection<WorkItem>(numWorkers);
_outputQueue = new ConcurrentPriorityQueue<int, T>();
_workers = new Task[numWorkers];
startWorkers();
Task.Factory.StartNew(enqueueWorkItems);
_multiplexor = Task.Factory.StartNew(multiplex);
}
private void startWorkers()
{
for (int i = 0; i < _workers.Length; ++i)
{
_workers[i] = Task.Factory.StartNew(processBlocks);
}
}
private void enqueueWorkItems()
{
int index = 0;
while (true)
{
T data = _read();
if (data == null) // Signals end of input.
{
_inputQueue.CompleteAdding();
_outputQueue.Enqueue(index, null); // Special sentinel WorkItem .
break;
}
_workPool.Wait();
_inputQueue.Add(new WorkItem(data, index++));
}
}
private void multiplex()
{
int index = 0; // Next required index.
int last = int.MaxValue;
while (index != last)
{
KeyValuePair<int, T> workItem;
_outputQueue.WaitForNewItem(); // There will always be at least one item - the sentinel item.
while ((index != last) && _outputQueue.TryPeek(out workItem))
{
if (workItem.Value == null) // The sentinel item has a null value to indicate that it's the sentinel.
{
last = workItem.Key; // The sentinel's key is the index of the last block + 1.
}
else if (workItem.Key == index) // Is this block the next one that we want?
{
// Even if new items are added to the queue while we're here, the new items will be lower priority.
// Therefore it is safe to assume that the item we will dequeue now is the same one we peeked at.
_outputQueue.TryDequeue(out workItem);
Contract.Assume(workItem.Key == index); // This *must* be the case.
_workPool.Release(); // Allow the enqueuer to queue another work item.
_write(workItem.Value);
++index;
}
else // If it's not the block we want, we know we'll get a new item at some point.
{
_outputQueue.WaitForNewItem();
}
}
}
}
private void processBlocks()
{
foreach (var block in _inputQueue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
var processedData = _process(block.Data);
_outputQueue.Enqueue(block.Index, processedData);
}
}
public bool WaitForFinished(int maxMillisecondsToWait) // Can be Timeout.Infinite.
{
return _multiplexor.Wait(maxMillisecondsToWait);
}
private sealed class WorkItem
{
public WorkItem(T data, int index)
{
Data = data;
Index = index;
}
public T Data { get; private set; }
public int Index { get; private set; }
}
private readonly Task[] _workers;
private readonly Task _multiplexor;
private readonly SemaphoreSlim _workPool;
private readonly BlockingCollection<WorkItem> _inputQueue;
private readonly ConcurrentPriorityQueue<int, T> _outputQueue;
private readonly Read _read;
private readonly Process _process;
private readonly Write _write;
}
Here's the test code for it:
namespace Demo
{
public static class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
_rng = new Random(34324);
int threadCount = 8;
_maxBlocks = 200;
ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(threadCount + 2, 4); // Kludge to prevent slow thread startup.
_numBlocks = _maxBlocks;
var stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
var processor = new ParallelWorkProcessor<byte[]>(read, process, write, threadCount);
processor.WaitForFinished(Timeout.Infinite);
Console.WriteLine("\n\nFinished in " + stopwatch.Elapsed + "\n\n");
}
private static byte[] read()
{
if (_numBlocks-- == 0)
{
return null;
}
var result = new byte[128];
result[0] = (byte)(_maxBlocks-_numBlocks);
Console.WriteLine("Supplied input: " + result[0]);
return result;
}
private static byte[] process(byte[] data)
{
if (data[0] == 10) // Hack for test purposes. Make it REALLY slow for this item!
{
Console.WriteLine("Delaying a call to process() for 5s for ID 10");
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Thread.Sleep(10 + _rng.Next(50));
Console.WriteLine("Processed: " + data[0]);
return data;
}
private static void write(byte[] data)
{
Console.WriteLine("Received output: " + data[0]);
}
private static Random _rng;
private static int _numBlocks;
private static int _maxBlocks;
}
}
This also requires a ConcurrentPriorityQueue implementation from here.
I had to modify that slightly, so here's my modified version:
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
/// <summary>Provides a thread-safe priority queue data structure.</summary>
/// <typeparam name="TKey">Specifies the type of keys used to prioritize values.</typeparam>
/// <typeparam name="TValue">Specifies the type of elements in the queue.</typeparam>
[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Naming", "CA1711:IdentifiersShouldNotHaveIncorrectSuffix")]
[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Naming", "CA1710:IdentifiersShouldHaveCorrectSuffix")]
[DebuggerDisplay("Count={Count}")]
public sealed class ConcurrentPriorityQueue<TKey, TValue> :
IProducerConsumerCollection<KeyValuePair<TKey,TValue>>
where TKey : IComparable<TKey>
{
/// <summary>Initializes a new instance of the ConcurrentPriorityQueue class.</summary>
public ConcurrentPriorityQueue() {}
/// <summary>Initializes a new instance of the ConcurrentPriorityQueue class that contains elements copied from the specified collection.</summary>
/// <param name="collection">The collection whose elements are copied to the new ConcurrentPriorityQueue.</param>
[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Design", "CA1006:DoNotNestGenericTypesInMemberSignatures")]
public ConcurrentPriorityQueue(IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>> collection)
{
if (collection == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("collection");
foreach (var item in collection) _minHeap.Insert(item);
}
/// <summary>Adds the key/value pair to the priority queue.</summary>
/// <param name="priority">The priority of the item to be added.</param>
/// <param name="value">The item to be added.</param>
public void Enqueue(TKey priority, TValue value)
{
Enqueue(new KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>(priority, value));
}
/// <summary>Adds the key/value pair to the priority queue.</summary>
/// <param name="item">The key/value pair to be added to the queue.</param>
public void Enqueue(KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> item)
{
lock (_syncLock)
{
_minHeap.Insert(item);
_newItem.Set();
}
}
/// <summary>Waits for a new item to appear.</summary>
public void WaitForNewItem()
{
_newItem.WaitOne();
}
/// <summary>Attempts to remove and return the next prioritized item in the queue.</summary>
/// <param name="result">
/// When this method returns, if the operation was successful, result contains the object removed. If
/// no object was available to be removed, the value is unspecified.
/// </param>
/// <returns>
/// true if an element was removed and returned from the queue succesfully; otherwise, false.
/// </returns>
public bool TryDequeue(out KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> result)
{
result = default(KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>);
lock (_syncLock)
{
if (_minHeap.Count > 0)
{
result = _minHeap.Remove();
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
/// <summary>Attempts to return the next prioritized item in the queue.</summary>
/// <param name="result">
/// When this method returns, if the operation was successful, result contains the object.
/// The queue was not modified by the operation.
/// </param>
/// <returns>
/// true if an element was returned from the queue succesfully; otherwise, false.
/// </returns>
public bool TryPeek(out KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> result)
{
result = default(KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>);
lock (_syncLock)
{
if (_minHeap.Count > 0)
{
result = _minHeap.Peek();
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
/// <summary>Empties the queue.</summary>
public void Clear() { lock(_syncLock) _minHeap.Clear(); }
/// <summary>Gets whether the queue is empty.</summary>
public bool IsEmpty { get { return Count == 0; } }
/// <summary>Gets the number of elements contained in the queue.</summary>
public int Count
{
get { lock (_syncLock) return _minHeap.Count; }
}
/// <summary>Copies the elements of the collection to an array, starting at a particular array index.</summary>
/// <param name="array">
/// The one-dimensional array that is the destination of the elements copied from the queue.
/// </param>
/// <param name="index">
/// The zero-based index in array at which copying begins.
/// </param>
/// <remarks>The elements will not be copied to the array in any guaranteed order.</remarks>
public void CopyTo(KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>[] array, int index)
{
lock (_syncLock) _minHeap.Items.CopyTo(array, index);
}
/// <summary>Copies the elements stored in the queue to a new array.</summary>
/// <returns>A new array containing a snapshot of elements copied from the queue.</returns>
public KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>[] ToArray()
{
lock (_syncLock)
{
var clonedHeap = new MinBinaryHeap(_minHeap);
var result = new KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>[_minHeap.Count];
for (int i = 0; i < result.Length; i++)
{
result[i] = clonedHeap.Remove();
}
return result;
}
}
/// <summary>Attempts to add an item in the queue.</summary>
/// <param name="item">The key/value pair to be added.</param>
/// <returns>
/// true if the pair was added; otherwise, false.
/// </returns>
bool IProducerConsumerCollection<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>>.TryAdd(KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> item)
{
Enqueue(item);
return true;
}
/// <summary>Attempts to remove and return the next prioritized item in the queue.</summary>
/// <param name="item">
/// When this method returns, if the operation was successful, result contains the object removed. If
/// no object was available to be removed, the value is unspecified.
/// </param>
/// <returns>
/// true if an element was removed and returned from the queue succesfully; otherwise, false.
/// </returns>
bool IProducerConsumerCollection<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>>.TryTake(out KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> item)
{
return TryDequeue(out item);
}
/// <summary>Returns an enumerator that iterates through the collection.</summary>
/// <returns>An enumerator for the contents of the queue.</returns>
/// <remarks>
/// The enumeration represents a moment-in-time snapshot of the contents of the queue. It does not
/// reflect any updates to the collection after GetEnumerator was called. The enumerator is safe to
/// use concurrently with reads from and writes to the queue.
/// </remarks>
public IEnumerator<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>> GetEnumerator()
{
var arr = ToArray();
return ((IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>>)arr).GetEnumerator();
}
/// <summary>Returns an enumerator that iterates through a collection.</summary>
/// <returns>An IEnumerator that can be used to iterate through the collection.</returns>
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() { return GetEnumerator(); }
/// <summary>Copies the elements of the collection to an array, starting at a particular array index.</summary>
/// <param name="array">
/// The one-dimensional array that is the destination of the elements copied from the queue.
/// </param>
/// <param name="index">
/// The zero-based index in array at which copying begins.
/// </param>
void ICollection.CopyTo(Array array, int index)
{
lock (_syncLock) ((ICollection)_minHeap.Items).CopyTo(array, index);
}
/// <summary>
/// Gets a value indicating whether access to the ICollection is synchronized with the SyncRoot.
/// </summary>
bool ICollection.IsSynchronized { get { return true; } }
/// <summary>
/// Gets an object that can be used to synchronize access to the collection.
/// </summary>
object ICollection.SyncRoot { get { return _syncLock; } }
/// <summary>Implements a binary heap that prioritizes smaller values.</summary>
private sealed class MinBinaryHeap
{
private readonly List<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>> _items;
/// <summary>Initializes an empty heap.</summary>
public MinBinaryHeap()
{
_items = new List<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>>();
}
/// <summary>Initializes a heap as a copy of another heap instance.</summary>
/// <param name="heapToCopy">The heap to copy.</param>
/// <remarks>Key/Value values are not deep cloned.</remarks>
public MinBinaryHeap(MinBinaryHeap heapToCopy)
{
_items = new List<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>>(heapToCopy.Items);
}
/// <summary>Empties the heap.</summary>
public void Clear() { _items.Clear(); }
/// <summary>Adds an item to the heap.</summary>
public void Insert(KeyValuePair<TKey,TValue> entry)
{
// Add the item to the list, making sure to keep track of where it was added.
_items.Add(entry);
int pos = _items.Count - 1;
// If the new item is the only item, we're done.
if (pos == 0) return;
// Otherwise, perform log(n) operations, walking up the tree, swapping
// where necessary based on key values
while (pos > 0)
{
// Get the next position to check
int nextPos = (pos-1) / 2;
// Extract the entry at the next position
var toCheck = _items[nextPos];
// Compare that entry to our new one. If our entry has a smaller key, move it up.
// Otherwise, we're done.
if (entry.Key.CompareTo(toCheck.Key) < 0)
{
_items[pos] = toCheck;
pos = nextPos;
}
else break;
}
// Make sure we put this entry back in, just in case
_items[pos] = entry;
}
/// <summary>Returns the entry at the top of the heap.</summary>
public KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> Peek()
{
// Returns the first item
if (_items.Count == 0) throw new InvalidOperationException("The heap is empty.");
return _items[0];
}
/// <summary>Removes the entry at the top of the heap.</summary>
public KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> Remove()
{
// Get the first item and save it for later (this is what will be returned).
if (_items.Count == 0) throw new InvalidOperationException("The heap is empty.");
KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> toReturn = _items[0];
// Remove the first item if there will only be 0 or 1 items left after doing so.
if (_items.Count <= 2) _items.RemoveAt(0);
// A reheapify will be required for the removal
else
{
// Remove the first item and move the last item to the front.
_items[0] = _items[_items.Count - 1];
_items.RemoveAt(_items.Count - 1);
// Start reheapify
int current = 0, possibleSwap = 0;
// Keep going until the tree is a heap
while (true)
{
// Get the positions of the node's children
int leftChildPos = 2 * current + 1;
int rightChildPos = leftChildPos + 1;
// Should we swap with the left child?
if (leftChildPos < _items.Count)
{
// Get the two entries to compare (node and its left child)
var entry1 = _items[current];
var entry2 = _items[leftChildPos];
// If the child has a lower key than the parent, set that as a possible swap
if (entry2.Key.CompareTo(entry1.Key) < 0) possibleSwap = leftChildPos;
}
else break; // if can't swap this, we're done
// Should we swap with the right child? Note that now we check with the possible swap
// position (which might be current and might be left child).
if (rightChildPos < _items.Count)
{
// Get the two entries to compare (node and its left child)
var entry1 = _items[possibleSwap];
var entry2 = _items[rightChildPos];
// If the child has a lower key than the parent, set that as a possible swap
if (entry2.Key.CompareTo(entry1.Key) < 0) possibleSwap = rightChildPos;
}
// Now swap current and possible swap if necessary
if (current != possibleSwap)
{
var temp = _items[current];
_items[current] = _items[possibleSwap];
_items[possibleSwap] = temp;
}
else break; // if nothing to swap, we're done
// Update current to the location of the swap
current = possibleSwap;
}
}
// Return the item from the heap
return toReturn;
}
/// <summary>Gets the number of objects stored in the heap.</summary>
public int Count { get { return _items.Count; } }
internal List<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>> Items { get { return _items; } }
}
private readonly AutoResetEvent _newItem = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private readonly object _syncLock = new object();
private readonly MinBinaryHeap _minHeap = new MinBinaryHeap();
}
}