We Keep Coding

Need to implement "Scan" method in dll (non blocking)

Sorry for the title, i didn't find it easy to resume.
My issue is that I need to implement a c# dll that implements a 'scan' method, but this scan, when invoked, must not block the main thread of the application using the dll. Moreover, it is a duty that after the scan resolves it rises an Event.
So my issue (in the deep) is that i'm not so experienced at c#, and after very hard investigation i've come up with some solutions but i'm not very sure if they are the "right" procedures.
In the dll i've come up with:
public class Reader
{
public delegate void ReaderEventHandler(Object sender, AlertEventArgs e);
public void Scan(String ReaderName)
{
AlertEventArgs alertEventArgs = new AlertEventArgs();
alertEventArgs.uuiData = null;
//Code with blocking scan function here
if (ScanFinnished)
{
alertEventArgs.uuiData = "Scan Finnished!";
}
alertEventArgs.cardStateData = readerState[0].eventState;
ReaderEvent(new object(), alertEventArgs);
}
public event ReaderEventHandler ReaderEvent;
}
public class AlertEventArgs : EventArgs
{
#region AlertEventArgs Properties
private string _uui = null;
private uint cardState = 0;
#endregion
#region Get/Set Properties
public string uuiData
{
get { return _uui; }
set { _uui = value; }
}
public uint cardStateData
{
get { return cardState; }
set { cardState = value; }
}
#endregion
}
While in the main app I do:
Reader reader;
Task polling;
String SelectedReader = "Some_Reader";
private void bButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
reader = new Reader();
reader.ReaderEvent += new Reader.ReaderEventHandler(reader_EventChanged);
polling = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => reader.Scan(SelectedReader));
}
void reader_EventChanged(object sender, AlertEventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.uuiData + " Estado: " + e.cardStateData.ToString("X"));
reader.Dispose();
}
So here, it works fine but i don't know if it's the proper way, in addition i'm not able to handle possible Exceptions generated in the dll.
Also tried to use async/await but found it difficult and as I understand it's just a simpler workaround Tasks.
What are the inconvinients of this solution? how can i capture Exceptions (are they in other threads and that's why i cant try/catch them)? Possible concept faults?

When your class sends events, the sender usually is that class, this. Having new object() as sender makes absolutely no sense. Even null would be better but... just use this.
You shouldn't directly raise events as it might result in race conditions. Might not happen easily in your case but it's just a good guideline to follow. So instead of calling ReaderEvent(new object(), alertEventArgs); call RaiseReaderEvent(alertEventArgs); and create method for it.
For example:
private void RaiseReaderEvent(AlertEventArgs args)
{
var myEvent = ReaderEvent; // This prevents race conditions
if (myEvent != null) // remember to check that someone actually subscribes your event
myEvent(this, args); // Sender should be *this*, not some "new object()".
}
Though I personally like a bit more generic approach:
private void Raise<T>(EventHandler<T> oEvent, T args) where T : EventArgs
{
var eventInstance = oEvent;
if (eventInstance != null)
eventInstance(this, args);
}
Which can then be used to raise all events in same class like this:
Raise(ReaderEvent, alertEventArgs);
Since your scan should be non-blocking, you could use tasks, async/await or threads for example. You have chosen Tasks which is perfectly fine.
In every case you must understand that when you are not blocking your application, your application's main thread continues going like a train. Once you jump out of that train, you can't return. You probably should declare a new event "ErrorEvent" that is raised if your scan-procedure catches an exception. Your main application can then subscribe to that event as well, but you still must realize that those events are not (necessarily) coming from the main thread. When not, you won't be able to interact with your GUI directly (I'm assuming you have one due to button click handler). If you are using WinForms, you'll have to invoke all GUI changes when required.
So your UI-thread safe event handler should be something like this:
void reader_EventChanged(object sender, AlertEventArgs e)
{
if (InvokeRequired) // This true for others than UI Thread.
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
Text = "My new title!";
});
}
else
Text = "My new title!";
}
In WPF there's Dispather that handles similar invoking.

Check multiple checkbox.checked state inside a do while cycle

I asked in a previous question how to "Threading 2 forms to use simultaneously C#".
I realize now that I was not explicit enough and was asking the wrong question.
Here is my scenario:
I have some data, that I receive from a local server, that I need to write to a file.
This data is being sent at a constant time rate that I cant control.
What I would like to do is to have one winform for the initial setup of the tcp stream and then click on a button to start reading the tcp stream and write it to a file, and at the same time launch another winform with multiple check-boxes that I need to check the checked state and add that info simultaneously to the same file.
This processing is to be stopped when a different button is pressed, closing the stream, the file and the second winform. (this button location is not specifically mandatory to any of the winforms).
Because of this cancel button (and before I tried to implement the 2nd form) I used a background worker to be able to asynchronously cancel the do while loop used to read the stream and write the file.
private void bRecord_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
System.IO.StreamWriter file = new System.IO.StreamWriter(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory + DateTime.Now.ToString("yyyy-dd-M--HH-mm-ss") + ".xml", true);
data_feed = client.GetStream();
data_write = new StreamWriter(data_feed);
data_write.Write("<SEND_DATA/>\r\n");
data_write.Flush();
exit_state = false;
string behavior = null;
//code to launch form2 with the checkboxes
//...
worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
worker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler((state, args) =>
{
do
{
int var = data_feed.ReadByte();
if (var != -1)
{
data_in += (char)var;
if (data_in.IndexOf("\r\n") != -1)
{
//code to check the checkboxes state in form2
//if (form2.checkBox1.Checked) behavior = form2.checkBox1.Text;
//if (form2.checkBoxn.Checked) behavior = form2.checkBoxn.Text;
file.WriteLine(data_in + behavior);
data_in = "";
}
}
}
while (exit_state == false);
});
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void bStop_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
exit_state = true;
worker.CancelAsync();
}
I hope I've been clearer now.
I not experienced in event programming and just started in C# so please try to provide some simple examples in the answers if possible.

At first would it be enough to use one Winform? Disable all checkboxes, click a button which enables the checkboxes and start reading the tcpstream? If you need two Forms for other reasons let me know, but i think this isn't needed from what i can see in your question.
Then i would suggest you to use the Task Library from .Net. This is the "modern" way to handle multithreading. BackgroundWorker is kind of old school. If you just able to run on .Net 2.0 you have to use BackgroundWorker, but don't seem to be the case (example follows).
Further if you want to cancel a BackgroundWorker operation this isn't only call CancelAsync();. You also need to handle the e.Cancelled flag.
backgroundWorker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
private void CancelBW()
{
backgroundWorker.CancelAsync();
}
private void backgroundWorker_DoWork += ((sender, args)
{
//Handle the cancellation (in your case do this in your loop for sure)
if (e.Cancelled) //Flag is true if someone call backgroundWorker.CancelAsync();
return;
//Do your stuff.
});
There is no common way to directly cancel the backgroundWorker
operation. You always need to handle this.
Now let's change your code to the modern TAP-Pattern and make some stuff you want to have.
private void MyForm : Form
{
private CancellationTokenSource ct;
public MyForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
checkbox1.Enable = false;
//Disable all checkboxes here.
ct = new CancellationTokenSource();
}
//Event if someone click your start button
private void buttonStart_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//Enable all checkboxes here
//This will be called if we get some progress from tcp
var progress = new Progress<string>(value =>
{
//check the behaviour of the checkboxes and write to file
file.WriteLine(value + behavior);
});
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => ListenToTcp(ct, progress as IProgress<string)); //starts the tcp listening async
}
//Event if someone click your stop button
private void buttonStop_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
ct.Cancel();
//Disable all checkboxes (better make a method for this :D)
}
private void ListenToTcp(CancellationToken ct, IProgess<string> progress)
{
do
{
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
int temp = data_feed.ReadByte(); //replaced var => temp because var is keyword
if (temp != -1)
{
data_in += (char)temp;
if (data_in.IndexOf("\r\n") != -1)
{
if (progress != null)
progress.Report(data_in); //Report the tcp-data to form thread
data_in = string.empty;
}
}
while (exit_state == false);
}
}
This snippet should do the trick. I don't test it so some syntax error maybe occur :P, but the principle will work.
The most important part is that you are not allowed to access gui
components in another thread then gui thread. You tried to access the
checkboxes within your BackgroundWorker DoWork which is no possible
and throw an exception.
So I use a Progress-Object to reuse the data we get in the Tcp-Stream, back to the Main-Thread. There we can access the checkboxes, build our string and write it to the file. More about BackgroundWorker vs. Task and the Progress behaviour you can find here.
Let me know if you have any further questions.

EventHandler vs Timeout

I had write a little application on c# to reading some plc data by using ethernet protocol. Ethernet socket, open and close are stored inside a .dll library.
Now, i using this public method:
public static string readdata()
{
try
{
...
return (plcdata());
}
catch
{}
}
My doubt: if the plcdata() (that is a method of a .dll) waiting a few second (for istance slow comunication ...) my application may be frozen.
So, i try to add a EventHandler on string returned like this:
private static TextBox auxDataTextBox = new TextBox();
public static void goRead()
{
auxDataTextBox.TextChanged += new EventHandler(auxDataIncoming);
auxDataTextBox.Text = plcdata();
}
private static void auxDataIncoming(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Do something
}
In this case when the "plcdata()" changed, the auxDataIncoming will be raise.
It is correct? Or is better make a timeout control? Or make new thread?
Thanks a lot for yours opinion

Your change won't make a difference, it' still all running on the UI thread. To make plcdata() a non-blocking call you would need to fire it off on another thread e.g.
private static TextBox auxDataTextBox = new TextBox();
public static void goRead()
{
auxDataTextBox.TextChanged += new EventHandler(auxDataIncoming);
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
return plcData();
}).ContinueWith(task => {
auxDataTextBox.Text = task.Result;
}, null, TaskContinuationOptions.NotOnFaulted, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
}
private static void auxDataIncoming(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Do something
}

This will not unfreeze your application. The effect will be exactly the same. This is because you are still running the plcdata on your UI thread.
The whole event structure you set up does not make sense at all.
You should look into multithreading. A very easy way to do this is using a BackgroundWorker.

Backgroundworker is always busy

I'm new to using event handlers and backgroundworkers, so I may be missing something completely obvious here. Still, I've been trying to fix this for two days, so I thought I might as well see what anyone had to say.
I have a backgroundworker called SqlExpressDownloader. It starts running at the beginning of my program, the rest of the work runs, and then it should wait for the operations in the SqlExpressDownloader_DoWork() method to complete before continuing. The only problem is that for some reason whenever I do while(SqlExpressDownloader.IsBusy), it always responds as busy and therefore will wait forever.
The code for the event handler is here:
private void SqlExpressDownloader_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
string sSource = string.Format("{0}\\{1}", Paths.Settings_Common, "sqlexpr_x64_enu.exe");
Debug.WriteLine(sSource);
Debug.WriteLine("http://www.elexioamp.com/Install/redistributables/sql2008r2express/sqlexpr_x64_enu.exe");
if (!System.IO.File.Exists(sSource))
{
WebClient oWebClient = new WebClient();
oWebClient.DownloadProgressChanged += DownloadProgressChanged;
oWebClient.DownloadDataCompleted += DownloadComplete;
oWebClient.DownloadFileAsync(new System.Uri("http://www.elexioamp.com/Install/redistributables/sql2008r2express/sqlexpr_x64_enu.exe"), sSource);
while (oWebClient.IsBusy)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
e.Result = "";
DownloadFinished = true;
}
}
I have watched the code and have watched it complete this method. I even added a return after the DownloadFinished = true, but it still responds as busy. What I want to know is how to make the backgroundworker respond as not busy.
EDIT
The events are all added in the constructor as shown here:
SqlExpressDownloader = new BackgroundWorker();
SqlExpressDownloader.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(this.SqlExpressDownloader_DoWork);
SqlExpressDownloader.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(this.SqlExpressDownloader_RunWorkerCompleted);
The RunWorkerCompleteEventHandler looks like this:
private void SqlExpressDownloader_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error != null)
{
Debug.WriteLine("The actions are complete.");
}
else
{
Debug.WriteLine("Error in completed work.");
}
}
But, when I debugged it last, it didn't actually trigger.

Instead of querying SqlExpressDownloader.IsBusy in a loop, try subscribing to the RunWorkerCompleted event of the BackgroundWorker and place your code in there that should only occur after the DoWork event has completed.
You'll also have access to the RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs, which you can check to make sure no error was thrown from the DoWork portion of your BackgroundWorker.
...
...
SqlExpressDownloader.RunWorkerCompleted += SqlExpressDownloader_RunWorkerCompleted;
SqlExpressDownloader.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void SqlExpressDownloader_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error != null)
{
// do something in response to the error
}
// stuff to do after DoWork has completed
}
I found Joe Albahari's tutorial helpful when I was learning how to use these.

You can replace your code with more elegant async/await solution like this
private async Task SqlExpressDownloadAsync()
{
string sSource = string.Format("{0}\\{1}", Paths.Settings_Common, "sqlexpr_x64_enu.exe");
Debug.WriteLine(sSource);
Debug.WriteLine("http://www.elexioamp.com/Install/redistributables/sql2008r2express/sqlexpr_x64_enu.exe");
if (!System.IO.File.Exists(sSource))
{
WebClient oWebClient = new WebClient();
oWebClient.DownloadProgressChanged += DownloadProgressChanged;
oWebClient.DownloadDataCompleted += DownloadComplete;
await oWebClient.DownloadFileTaskAsync(new System.Uri("http://www.elexioamp.com/Install/redistributables/sql2008r2express/sqlexpr_x64_enu.exe"), sSource);
}
}

I had a similar issue. DownloadASync would fire but .IsBusy would always stay on true.
This probably won't be a common problem, just thought I share my resolution.
I used
MessageBox.Show(new Form() { TopMost = true }, "", "")
This was the cause. I also tried:
var t = new Form() { TopMost = true };
MessageBox.Show(t, "", "");
t.Dispose();
This caused the same issue.
My code had multiple threads, I assume one of them must have gotten stuck, or perhaps the MessageBox(the new Form() { TopMost = true; } ) call created a stuck thread.
As soon as I removed that part, eg.
MessageBox.Show("", "");
Everything worked as expected again.
So maybe you are creating another thread somewhere that is causing your issue.

Multithreading to speed up load times

I made a program that loads a bunch of computer information. In the Form_Load event I have it initialize 3 (that number will grow) panels of information. One that has a bunch of unit information seems to make the program load rather slowly. I've tried to speed it up a bunch by switching from WMI to using Native calls, which helped a bunch. Soon though I'm going to have network information posted as well. I used to load that panel but i disabled it for a little bit till I work out the bugs in my other panels. So while learning how I can use a seperate thread to update my battery information I figured that I might be able to create seperate threads in my unit information panel so that it might could load faster. I dont know that any of my information would cause concurrent issues, but i can work on that.
I want to start small so what if i change this
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
unitInformationPanel1.PopulateUnitInformation();
batteryInformationPanel1.InitializeBatteries();
magStripeReaderPanel1.SetupPointOfSale();
}
to this
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Thread infoThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(unitInformationPanel1.PopulateUnitInformation));
infoThread.Start();
batteryInformationPanel1.InitializeBatteries();
magStripeReaderPanel1.SetupPointOfSale();
}
would the info thread be terminated when populate unit info is done? or would it be better to move that thread creation into PopulateUnitInformation? here is what it looks like.
public void PopulateUnitInformation()
{
unitModelLabel.Text = Properties.Settings.Default.UnitModelString;
serialNumberLabel.Text = Properties.Settings.Default.UnitSerialString;
biosVersionLabel.Text = UnitBios.GetBiosNumber();
osLabel.Text = OS.getOSString();
cpuLabel.Text = UnitCpu.GetCpuInfo();
var hdd = HddInfo.GetHddInfo();
diskNameLabel.Text = hdd.Name;
diskCapacityLabel.Text = hdd.Capacity;
diskFirmwareLabel.Text = hdd.Firmware;
memoryLabel.Text = MemoryInformation.GetTotalMemory();
NetworkPresenceInformation.GetAdapatersPresent();
biometricLabel.Text = BiometricInformation.IsPresent ? "Present" : "Not Present";
var networkAdaptersPresense = NetworkPresenceInformation.GetAdapatersPresent();
bluetoothLabel.Text = networkAdaptersPresense[0] ? "Present" : "Not Present";
wifiLabel.Text = networkAdaptersPresense[1] ? "Present" : "Not Present";
cellularLabel.Text = networkAdaptersPresense[2] ? "Present" : "Not Present";
}
--
wow i just ran it with the infothread and it still took some time to load (might be the 12 panels i created in the main thread. but it loaded the 12 frames and the unit information panel populated its information after everything loaded. That was cool, but is it safe? is it somewhat easy to make 12 threads for my panels? or is that dumb?
EDIT
this is what i did for stopwatch.
Stopwatch programTimer;
public Form1()
{
programTimer = Stopwatch.StartNew();
InitializeComponent();
SetupDebugWindow();
TerminateKeymon();
UnitModel.SetModel();
UnitSerialNumber.SetSerialNumber();
}
private void Form1_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
audioBrightnessPanel1.UpdateBrightnessTrackbar();
applicationLauncherPanel1.LoadApplications();
programTimer.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Load Time: {0}",programTimer.ElapsedMilliseconds);
timer1.Start();
}
Will this be accurate?
EDIT 2 6/18/2012
Well I took the advice of using backgroundworker. Please let me know if i did this right.
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void BackgroundWorker1DoWork(object sender, System.ComponentModel.DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
unitInformationPanel1.PopulateUnitInformation();
batteryInformationPanel1.InitializeBatteries();
magStripeReaderPanel1.SetupPointOfSale();
}

You've asked a very broad question, but I'm going to give some general advice. If you want more specific information, you should consider deleting this question and posting more specific individual questions.
First and foremost, you should very strongly consider using something like the System.Threading.Task class for your multithreaded operations. There is a ton of information online about how to get started with it and how you can use Tasks to manage asynchronous operations. The short story is that if you're spinning up your own thread (as you're doing above), you almost certainly should be using something else to do that for you.
Adding multithreading to your code will not, in the strictest sense of the word, make it any "faster"; they will always take the same amount of total processor time. What it can and will do is two things: free up the UI thread to be responsive and allow you to split that "total processor time" across multiple cores or processors, should those be available to the system. So, if you have operation X that takes 10 seconds to complete, then just shifting operation X to another thread will not make it complete any faster than 10 seconds.
No, what you are doing above is not safe. I'm assuming that somewhere you've turned off checking for cross-thread communication errors in your app? Otherwise, that code should throw an exception, assuming this is a WinForms or WPF application. This is one reason to use Tasks, as you can easily separate the part of your process that actually takes a long time (or isn't UI related), then add a task continuation that uses the results and populates the UI elements within a properly synchronized context.

So my final approach this was as follows. I felt that my Main Form was doing more than it should. Sticking with the single responsibility principle I decided that MainForm should only be responsible for one thing, showing and displaying all 12 panels (now down to 11, i turned one into a menu item). So moved all the multithreading out of mainform and into program.cs. I found that this was even a little more difficult. What I did find though was a simple solution that allows me to not even worry about multithreading at all. It was the Idle event. Here is what i chose to do.
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
DateTime current = DateTime.Now;
DateTime today = new DateTime(2012,7,19);
TimeSpan span = current.Subtract(today);
if (span.Days<0)
{
MessageBox.Show("Please adjust Time then restart Aspects","Adjust Time");
Process.Start("timedate.cpl").WaitForExit();
}
else
{
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Idle += new EventHandler(Application_Idle);
mainForm = new MainForm();
mainForm.Closing += new CancelEventHandler(mainForm_Closing);
#if !DEBUG
TerminateKeymon();
StartSerial();
SetupDefaultValues();
EmbeddedMessageBox(0);
#endif
Application.Run(mainForm);
}
}
static void Application_Idle(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Application.Idle -= Application_Idle;
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
UnitInformation.SetupUnitInformation();
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
Aspects.Unit.HddInfo.GetHddInfo();
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
for (int i = 0; i < mainForm.Controls.Count; i++)
{
if (mainForm.Controls[i] is AbstractSuperPanel)
{
try
{
var startMe = mainForm.Controls[i] as AbstractSuperPanel;
startMe.StartWorking();
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + mainForm.Controls[i].ToString());
}
}
}
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Value = 0;
}
to sum up what that does is is I add a idle listener event. Once the thead goes idle (basically meaning that Mainform is finished drawing and making all 12 panels and is showing on my desktop) I then kill the idle event listener and tell all my panels and classes to start working one at a time, updating my progress bar as I go. It works great. The load time is still the same as it was before, but there is window visibile after only a few seconds. Maybe not the best use of resources, but i think the solution is simple and straight forward.

I had a question somewhat related to this for Mobile app development a few months back (see How to write a Trigger?), and Marc "the man" Gravell posted back with a simple class that I modified to return data to my main application whenever the thread was complete.
The actual class I put into use has loads of pointless data (for you), so I'm going to paste in a revised version of Mr. Gravell's code using techniques which I used to make them work:
First, I had to create my own EventArgs class:
public class SuperEventArgs : EventArgs {
private object data;
public SuperEventArgs(object data) : base() {
this.data = data;
}
public object Data { get { return data; } }
}
Using that, here is a class I created to pass my data back to the main thread:
public delegate event DataChangedHandler(object sender, SuperEventArgs e);
public class Simple1 {
private object parameter1, parameter2;
private Control parent;
#if PocketPC
public delegate void MethodInvoker(); // include this if it is not defined
#endif
public Simple1(Control frmControl, object param1, object param2) {
parent = frmControl;
parameter1 = param1;
parameter2 = param2;
}
public event DataChangedHandler DataChanged;
public void Start() {
object myData = new object(); // whatever this is. DataTable?
try {
// long routine code goes here
} finally {
if (DataChanged != null) {
SuperEventArgs e = new SuperEventArgs(myData);
MethodInvoker methInvoker = delegate {
DataChanged(this, e);
};
try {
parent.BeginInvoke(methInvoker);
} catch (Exception err) {
Log(err); // something you'd write
}
}
}
}
}
Back in the actual main thread of execution, you'd do something like this:
public partial class Form1 : Form {
private Simple1 simple;
public Form1() {
object query = new object(); // something you want to pass in
simple = new Simple1(this, query, DateTime.Now);
simple.DataChanged += new DataChangedHandler(simple1_DataChanged);
Thread thread = new Thread(simpleStart);
thread.Start();
}
private void simpleStart() {
if (simple != null) {
simple.Start();
}
}
private void simple1_DataChanged(object sender, SuperEventArgs e) {
MyFancyData fancy = e.Data as MyFancyData;
if (fancy != null) {
// populate your form with the data you received.
}
}
}
I know it looks long, but it works really well!
This is not anything I have actually tested, of course, because there isn't any data. If you get to working with it and you experience any issues, let me know and I'll happily help you work through them.
~JoeP