We Keep Coding

What would be a use case for Thread.Sleep(Timeout.Infinite)?

I happened to lay my eyes on an intellisense tool tip regarding the parameter passed to System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(int millisecondsTimeout), saying something like "(…) Specify System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite to block the thread indefinitely". And I am intrigued.
I can understand why one might include short inactive delays within a possibly endless loop, thus yielding processing power to other executing threads when no immediate action in the sleeping thread is required, although I typically prefer implementing such delays with EventWaitHandlers so that I can avoid waiting a full sleeping delay if I signal the thread to gracefully end its execution from a different thread.
But I cannot see when I might need to suspend a thread indefinitely, and in a way that, as far as I can tell, can only be interrupted through a rather ungraceful Thread.Abort()/ThreadAbortException pair.
So what would be a working scenario where I might want to suspend a thread indefinitely?

It is a pretty long story and I have to wave my hands a bit to make it understandable. Most programmers think that Thread.Sleep() puts the thread to sleep and prevents it from executing any code. This is not accurate. Thread.Sleep(Infinite) is equivalent to Application.Run(). No kidding.
This doesn't happen very often in real life, it is mostly relevant in custom hosting scenarios. Getting code to run on a specific thread is in general an important feature to deal with code that is not thread-safe and the major reason why Application.Run() exists. But Windows exposes another way to do at a much lower level, the underlying api for this is QueueUserAPC(). The .NET analogue of this function is BeginInvoke().
This requires the thread to co-operate, just like it does when it calls Application.Run(). The thread must be in an "alertable wait state", executing a blocking function that can be interrupted. The CLR does not execute the sleep by itself, it passes the job to the CLR host. Most hosts will simply execute SleepEx(), passing TRUE for the bAlertable argument. The thread is now in a state to execute any requests posted by QueueUserAPC(). Just like it will be when it is actively executing inside the Application.Run() dispatcher loop.
The kernel feature is not otherwise exposed at all in the framework. It is the kind of code that is very hard to get right, re-entrancy bugs are pretty nasty. As most programmers that were bitten by Application.DoEvents() or a poorly placed MessageBox.Show() can attest. It is however a valid scenario in a custom hosting scenario. Where the host can get C# code to run on a specific thread, using this mechanism. So it is possible to pass Infinite because the designers did not want to intentionally disable this scenario. If this is made possible at all by the host author then they'd let you know about it. I don't know of a practical example.
More practically, you do use this feature every day. It is the way that System.Threading.Timer and System.Timers.Timer are implemented. Done by a thread inside the CLR which is started as soon as you use any timer, it uses SleepEx(INFINITE, TRUE) at its core.

You can use .Interrupt() to wake a sleeping thread (causing ThreadInterruptedException in the code that was calling .Sleep(), which can be caught and handled), so this provides a mechanism to say "sleep until someone prods you". I'm not saying it is necessarily the best mechanism for this, but: it may have uses for you.

How InvokeRequired and Invoke let us make app thread safe

How InvokeRequired and Invoke let us make our apps thread safe.
Let's consider such code:
private void ThreadSafeUpdate(string message)
{
if (this.textBoxSome.InvokeRequired)
{
SetTextCallback d = new SetTextCallback(msg);
this.Invoke
(d, new object[] { message });
}
else
{
// It's on the same thread, no need for Invoke
this.textBoxSome.Text = message;
}
}
Is it possible to change state of InvokeRequired after InvokeRequired and before Invoke? If not, then why?
How does Invoking make it thread safe?
If InvokeRequired illustrate is current thread owning control, how would the thread know that it is or it is not the owner.
Let's consider that SomeMethod() is currently running on Thread1. We would like to call it from Thread2. Internally this method updates some field. Does Method.Invoke contain some kind of lock mechanism internally?
What if SomeMethod() takes very long time and we would like to run something other on the control owner thread. Does Invoking lock the owner thread or is it some kind of a background thread safe task?
ThreadSafeUpdate() //takes 5 minutes in Thread2
ThreadSafeUpdate() //after 2 minutes, we are running it in other thread2
ThreadSafeUpdate() //next run from Thread3
I think it is some kind of general pattern which can be implemented outside of winforms, what's its name?

Is it possible to change state of InvokeRequired
Yes, and it is a pretty common occurrence. Either because you started the thread too soon, before the form's Load event fired. Or because the user closed the window just as this code is running. In both cases this code fails with an exception. InvokeRequired fails when the thread races ahead of the window creation, the invoked code fails when the UI thread races ahead of the thread. The odds for an exception are low, too low to ever diagnose the bug when you test the code.
How Invoking make it thread safe?
You cannot make it safe with this code, it is a fundamental race. It must be made safe by interlocking the closing of the window with the thread execution. You must make sure that the thread stopped before allowing the window to close. The subject of this answer.
how would he know that he is or he is not owner.
This is something that can be discovered with a winapi call, GetWindowsThreadProcessId(). The Handle property is the fundamental oracle for that. Pretty decent test, but with the obvious flaw that it cannot work when the Handle is no longer valid. Using an oracle in general is unwise, you should always know when code runs on a worker thread. Such code is very fundamentally different from code that runs on the UI thread. It is slow code.
We would like to call it from Thread2
This is not in general possible. Marshaling a call from one thread to a specific other thread requires that other thread to co-operate. It must solve the producer-consumer problem. Take a look at the link, the fundamental solution to that problem is a dispatcher loop. You probably recognize it, that's how the UI thread of a program operates. Which must solve this problem, it gets notifications from arbitrary other threads and UI is never thread-safe. But worker threads in general don't try to solve this problem themselves, unless you write it explicitly, you need a thread-safe Queue and a loop that empties it.
What's if SomeMethod() takes very long time
Not sure I follow, the point of using threads is to let code that takes a long time not do anything to harm the responsiveness of the user interface.
I think it is some kind of general pattern
There is, it doesn't look like this. This kind of code tends to be written when you have an oh-shoot moment and discover that your UI is freezing. Bolting threading on top of code that was never designed to support threading is forever a bad idea. You'll overlook too many nasty little details. Very important to minimize the number of times the worker thread interacts with the UI thread, your code is doing the opposite. Fall in the pit of success with the BackgroundWorker class, its RunWorkerCompleted event gives a good synchronized way to update UI with the result of the background operation. And if you like Tasks then the TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() method helps you localize the interactions.

Usually, no. But it could happen if you're using await between the InvokeRequired check and Invoke call without capturing the execution context. Of course, if you're already using await, you're probably not going to be using Invoke and InvokeRequired.
EDIT: I just noticed that InvokeRequired will return false when the control handle hasn't been created yet. It shouldn't make much of a difference, because your call will fail anyway when the control hasn't quite been created yet, but it is something to keep in mind.
It doesn't make it thread-safe. It just adds the request to the control's queue, so that it's executed the next available time on the same thread the control was created on. This has more to do with windows architecture than with general thread-safety. The end result, however, is that the code runs on a single thread - of course, this still means you need to handle shared state synchronization manually, if any.
Well, it's complicated. But in the end, it boils down to comparing the thread ID of the thread that created the control, and the current thread ID. Internally, this calls the native method GetWindowThreadProcessId - the operating system keeps track of the controls (and more importantly, their message loops).
Invoke cannot return until the GUI thread returns to its message loop. Invoke itself only posts the command to the queue and waits for it to be processed. But the command is run on the GUI thread, not the Invoke-caller. So the SomeMethod calls in your example will be serialized, and the Invoke call itself will wait until the second call finishes.
This should already be answered. The key point is "only run GUI code on the GUI thread". That's how you get reliable and responsive GUI at all times.
You can use it anywhere you've got a loop or a wait on some queue. It probably isn't all that useful, although I have actually used it already a few times (mostly in legacy code).
However, all of this is just a simple explanation of the workings. The truth is, you shouldn't really need InvokeRequired... well, ever. It's an artifact of a different age. This is really mostly about juggling threads with little order, which isn't exactly a good practice. The uses I've seen are either lazy coding, or hotfixes for legacy code - using this in new code is silly. The argument for using InvokeRequired is usually like "it allows us to handle this business logic safely whether it runs in the GUI thread or not". Hopefully, you can see the problem with that logic :)
Also, it's not free thread-safety. It does introduce delays (especially when the GUI thread is also doing some work that isn't GUI - very likely in code that uses InvokeRequired in the first place). It does not protect you from accesses to the shared state from other threads. It can introduce deadlocks. And don't even get me started on doing anything with code that uses Application.DoEvents.
And of course, it's even less useful once you take await into consideration - writing asynchronous code is vastly easier, and it allows you to make sure the GUI code always runs in the GUI context, and the rest can run wherever you want (if it uses a thread at all).

On which thread(s) does WebClient raise its events?

I can not find any documentation that specifies on which thread WebClient raises its events. I ran some tests and determined the following:
If called from a UI thread (say from an event handler) the event handler will be executed on that thread. As a test, I added an infinite loop after the call to OpenReadAsync. The event handler was never called.
If there is no UI thread, like in a console application, the event handler will be executed on a thread pool thread. In this case, if I wanted to provide some results the rest of the application, I would have to be aware of threading issues.
Is this behaviour documented anywhere? I found nothing.
I have the basically the same question concerning the new async features of C# - eventually, the asynchronous code will have to be executed. Will that also spawn a thread pool thread when there is no UI thread? Will that, in turn, require thread safe code?
I feel that I am missing something here - I can only find very little information about this, but this seems important to me.

For WebClient, I haven't found it documented either, but have seen the same behaviour as you. Essentially this can be described as "if there's an active synchronization context when the call is started, it's used - otherwise the thread pool is used."
For the async behaviour in C# 5, it depends on the implementation of whatever you're awaiting... but I believe the awaiter for Task<T> will use TaskScheduler.Current to schedule a continuation - which means you'll see the same sort of behaviour. (It's not necessarily just a UI thread which sets a task scheduler, but that's the most obvious example.)
When thread pool threads are used, it should still be thread-safe - the method is only executing in a single thread at a time, and I believe the Task Parallel Library performs all the required memory barriers.
If you're interested in how async hangs together behind the scenes, you might want to read my Eduasync blog series.

The WebClient Class implements the Event-based Asynchronous Pattern. The pattern is fully described in the Framework Design Guidelines, but MSDN also provides a few hints how it is implemented:
Implementors of the pattern use the AsyncOperationManager to create an AsyncOperation for each asynchronous operation and raise events using the AsyncOperation.Post Method. The Post Method executes the passed callback on the SynchronizationContext that was current at the time when the AsyncOperation was created.
The default SynchronizationContext in a WinForms or WPF application is the UI thread, or null in a Console application. The WebClient Class apparently chooses to raise the events in a ThreadPool thread in the latter case, but this is an implementation detail.

Raise event in one thread to invoke methods in a second thread

I'm working on a program which reacts to events coming from an internet socket, and possibly from timers as well. It seems natural to use two threads:
One for the main program
A second one which listens to the socket, parses the input, and raises an appropriate event.
Additional requirements:
The application should not rely on a UI thread (it may be run as a console application).
The main program should process messages synchronously, i.e. in the order in which they arrived.
The main thread must not block on waiting for timers (I guess this means I have to run timers on different threads).
And now for some questions :-):
I'm guessing requirement #1 means that I don't have a built-in message pump, so I can't use Invoke() from the socket listener / timer threads. Is this correct?
How can I safely raise events on one thread (e.g. the listener), and have the subscribers run synchronously on another (the main thread)?
It is very likely that new events will be raised before the subsequent handler is done. What will happen in this case? Will the event be buffed somewhere by the CLR, or will it be ignored?
And last but not least: I guess I'm aiming for the parallel for the message Producer/Consumer paradigm, but instead of messages, I want to use events. Do you think there is a better approach?
Thanks,
Boaz
EDIT
I want to explain my motivation for using events in the first place. The application is an automated trading engine which has to respond to events that happen in the market (e.g. a change in the price of a stock). When this happens, there may be multiple subscribers on the main thread which should be invoked, which is a classical scenario to use events.
I guess I can always use the Producer/Consumer with some message queue, and have the consumer raise events on the main thread, but I figured there might be a more direct way.

I think using messages will be the simplest way. If you are using C# 4 this is very easy thanks to the BlockingCollection<>
So have a shared BlockingCollection, where Message is your message class.
Then in your worker thread you do this
var msgEnum = blockingCollection.GetConsumingEnumerable();
//Per thread
foreach( Message message in msgEnum )
{
//Process messages here
}
That is it.
The GetConsumingEnumerable() will block until there is a message to process. It will then remove the message from the queue and your loop will process it.
What is nice about this is that you can add more threads and in each one you just have the foreach loop.
When you are done call blockingCollection.CompletedAdding();
BTW the queue handles concurrency and will queue messages sent at the same time etc.
Hope this helps
Andre

You could implement a shared queue between your threads. Whenever an event is raised you could push it in the queue. The main thread is an endless loop that checks for new events, removes them from the queue, handles the event and when there are no more events it sleeps for some time.

How to program asynchronous Windows Forms Applications?

I'm writting a Windows Forms application in C# that performs a lot of long-running procedures. I need to program the application so that the GUI doesn't lock. What is the best way to program it?
I know how to use the following:
BeginInvoke/EndInvoke
Calling Application.DoEvents() repeatedly (probably not a good idea)
BackgroundWorker
etc.
But how to manage GUI state with call backs, etc... is not trivial. Are there solutions for this (in the form of patterns or libraries)?

Using BackgroundWorker is the simplest way to do what you're trying to do. BackgroundWorker simplifies the logic of dealing with threads, leaving you with very little code you have to write. You just have to handle three events (DoWork, ProgressChanged, and RunWorkerCompleted) and follow a few principles:
Don't ever update the UI inside your long-running method. Have it call ReportProgress instead and handle the ProgressChanged event in the UI logic.
Understand that since the worker isn't running on the UI thread, an exception that your method throws doesn't automatically show up in the UI. It just gets silently written to the console. It's very important to check the Error property of the RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs when the method is done and handle (or throw) the exception. If you don't do this, you won't know that your method failed.
If the method can be cancelled, make sure that it periodically checks the CancellationPending property to see if cancellation has been requested. If it has, once it's done handling the cancellation, set the Cancel property on the DoWorkEventArgs object. Be aware that it's possible for CancellationPending to be true and Cancel to be false; this happens, for instance, when the user requests cancellation and the method finishes before it has a chance to check CancellationPending.
Correspondingly, check Cancel in your RunWorkerCompleted event handler, so that your UI can provide the proper response to what happened while the worker was running.
The examples in the documentation all show the DoWork event handler calling a method of the form. This is almost certainly not what you want to do. Separating business logic from UI is a good idea in general; in background tasks it's essential. If your long-running method is a member of a class that doesn't know that the UI even exists, there's no danger that you'll inadvertently have it call a method that updates a status bar or something.

The Model-View-Controller pattern separates the state of your UI from the visual aspects of the UI. As long as your MVC implementation is thread aware, it should solve the state management issue for you.
This is how I handle multi-threaded UI implementations.
EDIT: Here's a good post on selecting an MVC implementation for WinForms projects.

It is relatively simple to use the ThreadPool to fire off long running processes from the UI. If you want feedback you can use some event handlers to fire on certain events from the long running process, then register for them and update the UI as needed.
MVC is good, but you still need to make sure your process is firing off on a thread other than the UI thread.

All your options are syntactic sugar of doing same thing (Asynchronous execution). May be with different levels of controls. I would go with BackgroundWorker, because your GUI (handled by the main thread) will always be responsive.