We Keep Coding

How do you get a working interaction with ConfigureAwait(true) in a console application?

In a small project i am working on i have the neccessity for a component to execute a components shutdown code in the same thread that it was initialized in. However unlike in WPF/Winforms/Web the synchronizationcontext which takes care of this does not work.
My guess is that the lack of a synchronization context is the issue that causes the lack of utilization for ConfigureAwait(true).
Does someone know how to properly implement this?
I read this article but could not make any sense of it yet. Perhaps it was too late yesterday.
Minimal Repro:
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleSyncContext
{
class Program
{
static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Thread: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
await SomeBackgroundWorkAsync();
// if this is the same thread as above the question is solved.
Console.WriteLine($"Thread: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
}
private static async Task SomeBackgroundWorkAsync()
{
await Task.Run(() => { });
}
}
}

As you already figured out, console application by default doesn't have synchronization context, so ConfigureAwait has no effect, and continuation after your await SomePageLoad() will run on random thread pool thread. Note that using async main method is essentially equivalent to this:
static async Task AsyncMain() { ... } // your `async Task Main method`
// real Main method generated by compiler
static void RealMain() {
AsyncMain().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
In your case you don't need any synchronization context though. What you want is initialize CefSharp on main thread and shutdown CefSharp on main thread. So instead of using async Main - you can do the same as above, but initialize and shutdown Cef outside of async method:
static void Main(string[] args) {
// starting with thread 1
Cef.Initialize(new CefSettings());
try {
AsyncMain(args).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
finally {
// we are on main thread here
Cef.Shutdown();
}
}
static async Task AsyncMain(string[] args) {
await SomePageLoad(); // more stuff here
}
Edit: if you insist on using synchronization context then it can be done, but will add a lot of complications for nothing. Out goal is create synchronization context which will run all actions on the same thread. This case be done with simple actions queue, here is basic implementation (don't use it in production, provided as an example only, no exception handling and so on):
class CustomSyncContext : SynchronizationContext {
private readonly BlockingCollection<WorkItem> _queue = new BlockingCollection<WorkItem>(new ConcurrentQueue<WorkItem>());
private readonly Thread _thread;
public CustomSyncContext() {
// start new thread which will handle all callbacks
_thread = new Thread(() => {
// set outselves as current sync context for this thread
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(this);
foreach (var item in _queue.GetConsumingEnumerable()) {
try {
// execute action
item.Action();
}
finally {
// if this action is synchronous, signal the caller
item.Signal?.Set();
}
}
});
_thread.Start();
}
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state) {
// Post means acion is asynchronous, just queue and forget
_queue.Add(new WorkItem(() => d(state), null));
}
public override void Send(SendOrPostCallback d, object state) {
// Send means action is synchronous, wait on a single until our thread executes it
using (var signal = new ManualResetEvent(false)) {
_queue.Add(new WorkItem(() => d(state), signal));
signal.WaitOne();
}
}
public void Shutdown() {
// signal thread that no more callbacks are expected
_queue.CompleteAdding();
}
public void WaitForShutdown() {
_thread.Join();
}
private class WorkItem {
public WorkItem(Action action, ManualResetEvent signal) {
Action = action;
Signal = signal;
}
public Action Action { get; }
public ManualResetEvent Signal { get; }
}
}
And your code then becomes:
var ctx = new CustomSyncContext();
ctx.Send(async (_) => {
try {
// starting with thread 1
Cef.Initialize(new CefSettings());
// this method returns on thread 4
await SomePageLoad();
}
finally {
Cef.Shutdown();
// signal the context we are done, so that main thread can unblock
ctx.Shutdown();
Console.WriteLine("done");
}
}, null);
ctx.WaitForShutdown();
Now your code runs on custom synchronization context, and continuation after await SomePageLoad(); will be posted to that synchronization context and executed by our thread (the same thread which inited CefSharp) (no ConfigureAwait(true) is needed, as it's already true by default). Note that we achieved nothing useful - we have one more thread, and our main thread is still blocked waiting for the whole operation to complete (there is no sensible way around that).
Edit 2: here is variation which does not require separate thread, but is not much better:
class CustomSyncContext : SynchronizationContext {
private readonly BlockingCollection<WorkItem> _queue = new BlockingCollection<WorkItem>(new ConcurrentQueue<WorkItem>());
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state) {
// Post means acion is asynchronous, just queue and forget
_queue.Add(new WorkItem(() => d(state), null));
}
public override void Send(SendOrPostCallback d, object state) {
// Send means action is synchronous, wait on a single until our thread executes it
using (var signal = new ManualResetEvent(false)) {
_queue.Add(new WorkItem(() => d(state), signal));
signal.WaitOne();
}
}
public void Shutdown() {
// signal thread that no more callbacks are expected
_queue.CompleteAdding();
}
public void Start() {
// now we run the loop on main thread
foreach (var item in _queue.GetConsumingEnumerable()) {
try {
// execute action
item.Action();
}
finally {
// if this action is synchronous, signal the caller
item.Signal?.Set();
}
}
}
private class WorkItem {
public WorkItem(Action action, ManualResetEvent signal) {
Action = action;
Signal = signal;
}
public Action Action { get; }
public ManualResetEvent Signal { get; }
}
}
static async Task Main(string[] args) {
var ctx = new CustomSyncContext();
// set sync context
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(ctx);
// now execute our async stuff
var task = DoStuff().ContinueWith(x => ctx.Shutdown());
// now run the loop of sync context on the main thread.
// but, how do we know when to stop? Something from outside should singal that
// in the case signal is completion of DoStuff task
// note that most of the time main thread is still blocked while waiting for items in queue
ctx.Start();
}
private static async Task DoStuff() {
try {
// starting with thread 1
Cef.Initialize(new CefSettings());
// this method returns on thread 4
await SomePageLoad();
}
finally {
Cef.Shutdown();
// signal the context we are done, so that main thread can unblock
Console.WriteLine("done");
}
}

Your problem is indeed the lack of a Synchronisation context. You can't use ConfigureAwait(true) as this implies that you need to return to the original scheduler/context which does not exist.
Custom implementation
A very simple implementation that ought to do the trick is the one found here. Basically two steps.
Implement a custom synchronization context
public class CustomSynchronizationContext : SynchronizationContext
{
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback action, object state)
{
SendOrPostCallback actionWrap = (object state2) =>
{
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(new CustomSynchronizationContext());
action.Invoke(state2);
};
var callback = new WaitCallback(actionWrap.Invoke);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(callback, state);
}
public override SynchronizationContext CreateCopy()
{
return new CustomSynchronizationContext();
}
public override void Send(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
base.Send(d, state);
}
public override void OperationStarted()
{
base.OperationStarted();
}
public override void OperationCompleted()
{
base.OperationCompleted();
}
}
Initaliaze it and use it
static void Main()
{
var context = new CustomSynchronizationContext();
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(context);
AsyncEx library
You can also use the AsyncEx library
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
AsyncContext.Run(() => AsyncMethod(args));
}
static async void AsyncMethod(string[] args)
{
await something().ConfigureAwait(true);
}

execute after x seconds - use async task or timer ticks

currently I'm using a timer to poll every x seconds. I've seen that I could also use asyncronous tasks to execute a function after x seconds.
So I've created an example for reproduction. This is how I would use a polling timer
class UseTimer
{
public UseTimer()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo");
Timer myTimer = new Timer(2000);
myTimer.Elapsed += (object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Bar");
myTimer.Enabled = false;
};
myTimer.Enabled = true;
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
The code first logs Foo, then waits 2 seconds for the first timer tick and then logs Bar. I tried to reproduce it by using async/await
class UseAsync
{
public UseAsync()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo");
Do().Wait();
Console.ReadLine();
}
private async Task Do()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Bar");
}
}
The behaviour seems to be the same when I test it with this code
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// UseAsync a = new UseAsync();
UseTimer t = new UseTimer();
}
}
I would like to know if I could or even should switch to async because it's easier to maintain and takes out complexity but remains the same way under the hood.

"Every x seconds" is different from "after x seconds".
If you need to run something (repeatedly) every x seconds, use a Timer.
If you need to run something (only once) after x seconds, use Task.Delay.
As noted in the comments, Task.Delay uses a System.Threading.Timer anyway, it's just easier to use for a single wait, and keeps your code clean.
Also, it's not wise to use asynchronous methods in a class constructor. Class constructors cannot be async, and thus you end up blocking the thread (as you did when using Wait()), or "fire and forget". If you need to do anything asynchronous while creating a new object, you can use a "factory method": a static method that creates the object for you. Then you make the constructor private to force everyone to use the factory method:
class UseAsync
{
private UseAsync() {}
public static async Task<UseAsync> CreateUseAsync()
{
var myC = new UseAsync();
await myC.Do();
return myC;
}
private async Task Do()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Bar");
}
}
Then you can create an instance like this:
var a = await UseAsync.CreateUseAsync();
I've done this when I need to retrieve data from somewhere before an object is actually useful.

The console.readline should be outside useAsync method, if not the task Do will not be executed
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
UseAsync.UseAsyn();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
static class UseAsync
{
public static async Task UseAsyn()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo");
await Do();
}
private static async Task Do()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Bar");
}
}

How to make a slightly modified AutoResetEvent class?

I need a synchronizing class that behaves exactly like the AutoResetEvent class, but with one minor exception:
A call to the Set() method must release all waiting threads, and not just one.
How can I construct such a class? I am simply out of ideas?
Martin.

So you have multiple threads doing a .WaitOne() and you want to release them?
Use the ManualResetEvent class and all the waiting threads should release...

Thank you very much for all your thougts and inputs which I have read with great interest. I did some more searching here on Stackoverflow, and suddenly I found this, whcih turned out to be just what I was looking for. By cutting it down to just the two methods I need, I ended up with this small class:
public sealed class Signaller
{
public void PulseAll()
{
lock (_lock)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(_lock);
}
}
public bool Wait(TimeSpan maxWaitTime)
{
lock (_lock)
{
return Monitor.Wait(_lock, maxWaitTime);
}
}
private readonly object _lock = new object();
}
and it does excactly what it should! I'm amazed that a solution could be that simple, and I love such simplicity. I'ts beautiful. Thank you, Matthew Watson!
Martin.

Two things you might try.
Using a Barrier object add conditionally adding threads too it and signaling them.
The other might be to use a publisher subscriber setup like in RX. Each thread waits on an object that it passes to a collection. When you want to call 'set' loop over a snapshot of it calling set on each member.
Or you could try bears.

If the event is being referenced by all threads in a common field or property, you could replace the common field or property with a new non-signaled event and then signal the old one. It has some cost to it since you'll be regularly creating new synchronization objects, but it would work. Here's an example of how I would do that:
public static class Example
{
private static volatile bool stopRunning;
private static ReleasingAutoResetEvent myEvent;
public static void RunExample()
{
using (Example.myEvent = new ReleasingAutoResetEvent())
{
WaitCallback work = new WaitCallback(WaitThread);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(work, i.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(500);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
Example.myEvent.Set();
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Example.stopRunning = true;
Example.myEvent.Set();
}
}
private static void WaitThread(object state)
{
while (!Example.stopRunning)
{
Example.myEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} is released!", state);
}
}
}
public sealed class ReleasingAutoResetEvent : IDisposable
{
private volatile ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void Set()
{
ManualResetEvent eventToSet = this.manualResetEvent;
this.manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
eventToSet.Set();
eventToSet.Dispose();
}
public bool WaitOne()
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne();
}
public bool WaitOne(int millisecondsTimeout)
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne(millisecondsTimeout);
}
public bool WaitOne(TimeSpan timeout)
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne(timeout);
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.manualResetEvent.Dispose();
}
}

Another more lightweight solution you could try that uses the Monitor class to lock and unlock objects is below. However, I'm not as happy with the cleanup story for this version of ReleasingAutoResetEvent since Monitor may hold a reference to it and keep it alive indefinitely if it is not properly disposed.
There are a few limitations/gotchas with this implementation. First, the thread that creates this object will be the only one that will be able to signal it with a call to Set; other threads that attempt to do the same thing will receive a SynchronizationLockException. Second, the thread that created it will never be able to wait on it successfully since it already owns the lock. This will only be an effective solution if you have exactly one controlling thread and several other waiting threads.
public static class Example
{
private static volatile bool stopRunning;
private static ReleasingAutoResetEvent myEvent;
public static void RunExample()
{
using (Example.myEvent = new ReleasingAutoResetEvent())
{
WaitCallback work = new WaitCallback(WaitThread);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(work, i.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(500);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
Example.myEvent.Set();
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Example.stopRunning = true;
Example.myEvent.Set();
}
}
private static void WaitThread(object state)
{
while (!Example.stopRunning)
{
Example.myEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} is released!", state);
}
}
}
public sealed class ReleasingAutoResetEvent : IDisposable
{
private volatile object lockObject = new object();
public ReleasingAutoResetEvent()
{
Monitor.Enter(this.lockObject);
}
public void Set()
{
object objectToSignal = this.lockObject;
object objectToLock = new object();
Monitor.Enter(objectToLock);
this.lockObject = objectToLock;
Monitor.Exit(objectToSignal);
}
public void WaitOne()
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
Monitor.Enter(objectToMonitor);
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
public bool WaitOne(int millisecondsTimeout)
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
bool succeeded = Monitor.TryEnter(objectToMonitor, millisecondsTimeout);
if (succeeded)
{
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
return succeeded;
}
public bool WaitOne(TimeSpan timeout)
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
bool succeeded = Monitor.TryEnter(objectToMonitor, timeout);
if (succeeded)
{
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
return succeeded;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Monitor.Exit(this.lockObject);
}
}

Method lock in c#

I have one class with these three methods. This class is used by many threads.
I would like the Method1 to wait, if Method2 and/or Method3 are running in any threads.
Any suggestions?
public class Class1
{
public static void Method1()
{
Object lockThis = new Object();
lock (lockThis)
{
//Body function
}
}
public static void Method2()
{
//Body function
}
public static void Method3()
{
//Body function
}
}

If I understood correctly, you need something like this:
static object lockMethod2 = new object();
static object lockMethod3 = new object();
public static void Method1()
{
lock (lockMethod2)
lock (lockMethod3)
{
//Body function
}
}
public static void Method2()
{
lock (lockMethod2)
{
//Body function
}
}
public static void Method3()
{
lock (lockMethod3)
{
//Body function
}
}
This allows method3 to execute if method2 is running and vice versa, while method1 must wait for both. Of course, method2 and 3 will not run while 1 is running.

The current implementation of your lock is completely useless, because every thread will lock on a different object.
Locking is usually done with a readonly field that is initialized only once.
Like this, you can easily lock multiple methods:
public class Class1
{
private static readonly object _syncRoot = new object();
public static void Method1()
{
lock (_syncRoot)
{
//Body function
}
}
public static void Method2()
{
lock (_syncRoot)
{
//Body function
}
}
public static void Method3()
{
lock (_syncRoot)
{
//Body function
}
}
}

I would suggest a ReaderWriterLockSlim (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.readerwriterlockslim.aspx)
Similar to read operations, Method 2 and Method3 may occur in parallel, while Method1 (like a write operation) would need to wait for those to finish.
It's not the regular read/write concurrency situation, but the logic is similar.
public class Class1
{
private ReaderWriterLockSlim methodLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
public static void Method1()
{
methodLock.EnterWriteLock();
try
{
//Body function
}
finally
{
methodLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public static void Method2()
{
methodLock.EnterReadLock();
try
{
//Body function
}
finally
{
methodLock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
public static void Method3()
{
methodLock.EnterReadLock();
try
{
//Body function
}
finally
{
methodLock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
}

If you are multi-threading then the lock has to be accessible to all threads. Therefore, in this case, your locks needs to be static for the static methods to see it.
Your current setup will make a new lock object for each thread. Therefore, providing now synchronization.

C# Threading arguments are invalid

i got this Code from an Old post
public delegate void Worker();
private static Thread worker;
public static void Init(Worker work)
{
worker = new Thread(new ThreadStart(work));
worker.Start();
}
public static void Work()
{
string result = testing;
}
I modify the code by adding parameters , when i try to call Init("AA") I am getting an error "Best overload method has some invalid arguments"
The following is the edited code
public delegate void Worker();
private static Thread worker;
public static void Init(Worker work)
{
worker = new Thread(new ThreadStart(work));
worker.Start();
}
public static void Work(string testing)
{
string result = testing;
}

Your Init method takes a delegate and you are passing a string, that is why there is no overload.
you want to do : Init(Work)
PS : your issue has nothing to do with threading.

The problem is your Worker delegate expect take a string parameter. You need to update that and then pass in the parameter e.g.
public delegate void Worker(string str);
private static Thread worker;
public static void Init(Worker work)
{
worker = new Thread(work);
worker.Start("AA");
}
public static void Work(string testing)
{
string result = testing;
}

If you want to pass some data to thread you can use ParametrizedThreadStart, or anonymous method:
private static Thread worker;
public static void Init(string testing)
{
// passing anonymous method, which will capture parameter
worker = new Thread(() => Work(testing));
worker.Start();
}
public static void Work(string testing)
{
string result = testing;
}
private static Thread worker;
public static void Init(string testing)
{
// passing PrametrizedThreadStart delegate
worker = new Thread(Work);
worker.Start(testing); // passing parameter
}
// PrametrizedThreadStart delegate accepts object as parameter
public static void Work(object testing)
{
string result = (string)testing;
}