Related
I have a scenario. (Windows Forms, C#, .NET)
There is a main form which hosts some user control.
The user control does some heavy data operation, such that if I directly call the UserControl_Load method the UI become nonresponsive for the duration for load method execution.
To overcome this I load data on different thread (trying to change existing code as little as I can)
I used a background worker thread which will be loading the data and when done will notify the application that it has done its work.
Now came a real problem. All the UI (main form and its child usercontrols) was created on the primary main thread. In the LOAD method of the usercontrol I'm fetching data based on the values of some control (like textbox) on userControl.
The pseudocode would look like this:
CODE 1
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // This gives exception
{
//Load data corresponding to "MyName".
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage.
}
}
The Exception it gave was
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.
To know more about this I did some googling and a suggestion came up like using the following code
CODE 2
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (InvokeRequired) // Line #1
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod));
return;
}
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // Now it won't give an exception
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage
}
}
But it still seems that I've come back to square one. The Application again
becomes unresponsive. It seems to be due to the execution of line #1 if condition. The loading task is again done by the parent thread and not the third that I spawned.
I don't know whether I perceived this right or wrong.
How do I resolve this and also what is the effect of execution of Line#1 if block?
The situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that the corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
As per Prerak K's update comment (since deleted):
I guess I have not presented the question properly.
Situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
The solution you want then should look like:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
string name = "";
if(textbox1.InvokeRequired)
{
textbox1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { name = textbox1.text; }));
}
if(name == "MyName")
{
// do whatever
}
}
Do your serious processing in the separate thread before you attempt to switch back to the control's thread. For example:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
if(textbox1.text=="MyName") //<<======Now it wont give exception**
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be
//bound to grid at some later stage
if(InvokeRequired)
{
// after we've done all the processing,
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate {
// load the control with the appropriate data
}));
return;
}
}
}
Threading Model in UI
Please read the Threading Model in UI applications (old VB link is here) in order to understand basic concepts. The link navigates to page that describes the WPF threading model. However, Windows Forms utilizes the same idea.
The UI Thread
There is only one thread (UI thread), that is allowed to access System.Windows.Forms.Control and its subclasses members.
Attempt to access member of System.Windows.Forms.Control from different thread than UI thread will cause cross-thread exception.
Since there is only one thread, all UI operations are queued as work items into that thread:
If there is no work for UI thread, then there are idle gaps that can be used by a not-UI related computing.
In order to use mentioned gaps use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods:
BeginInvoke and Invoke methods
The computing overhead of method being invoked should be small as well as computing overhead of event handler methods because the UI thread is used there - the same that is responsible for handling user input. Regardless if this is System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke.
To perform computing expensive operation always use separate thread. Since .NET 2.0 BackgroundWorker is dedicated to performing computing expensive operations in Windows Forms. However in new solutions you should use the async-await pattern as described here.
Use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods only to update a user interface. If you use them for heavy computations, your application will block:
Invoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke causes separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
BeginInvoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke doesn't cause the separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
Code solution
Read answers on question How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?.
For C# 5.0 and .NET 4.5 the recommended solution is here.
You only want to use Invoke or BeginInvoke for the bare minimum piece of work required to change the UI. Your "heavy" method should execute on another thread (e.g. via BackgroundWorker) but then using Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke just to update the UI. That way your UI thread will be free to handle UI events etc.
See my threading article for a WinForms example - although the article was written before BackgroundWorker arrived on the scene, and I'm afraid I haven't updated it in that respect. BackgroundWorker merely simplifies the callback a bit.
I know its too late now. However even today if you are having trouble accessing cross thread controls? This is the shortest answer till date :P
Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
label1.Text = "WooHoo!!!";
}));
This is how i access any form control from a thread.
I have had this problem with the FileSystemWatcher and found that the following code solved the problem:
fsw.SynchronizingObject = this
The control then uses the current form object to deal with the events, and will therefore be on the same thread.
I find the check-and-invoke code which needs to be littered within all methods related to forms to be way too verbose and unneeded. Here's a simple extension method which lets you do away with it completely:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void Invoke<TControlType>(this TControlType control, Action<TControlType> del)
where TControlType : Control
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
control.Invoke(new Action(() => del(control)));
else
del(control);
}
}
And then you can simply do this:
textbox1.Invoke(t => t.Text = "A");
No more messing around - simple.
Controls in .NET are not generally thread safe. That means you shouldn't access a control from a thread other than the one where it lives. To get around this, you need to invoke the control, which is what your 2nd sample is attempting.
However, in your case all you've done is pass the long-running method back to the main thread. Of course, that's not really what you want to do. You need to rethink this a little so that all you're doing on the main thread is setting a quick property here and there.
The cleanest (and proper) solution for UI cross-threading issues is to use SynchronizationContext, see Synchronizing calls to the UI in a multi-threaded application article, it explains it very nicely.
Follow the simplest (in my opinion) way to modify objects from another thread:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
namespace TESTE
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Action<string> DelegateTeste_ModifyText = THREAD_MOD;
Invoke(DelegateTeste_ModifyText, "MODIFY BY THREAD");
}
private void THREAD_MOD(string teste)
{
textBox1.Text = teste;
}
}
}
A new look using Async/Await and callbacks. You only need one line of code if you keep the extension method in your project.
/// <summary>
/// A new way to use Tasks for Asynchronous calls
/// </summary>
public class Example
{
/// <summary>
/// No more delegates, background workers etc. just one line of code as shown below
/// Note it is dependent on the XTask class shown next.
/// </summary>
public async void ExampleMethod()
{
//Still on GUI/Original Thread here
//Do your updates before the next line of code
await XTask.RunAsync(() =>
{
//Running an asynchronous task here
//Cannot update GUI Thread here, but can do lots of work
});
//Can update GUI/Original thread on this line
}
}
/// <summary>
/// A class containing extension methods for the Task class
/// Put this file in folder named Extensions
/// Use prefix of X for the class it Extends
/// </summary>
public static class XTask
{
/// <summary>
/// RunAsync is an extension method that encapsulates the Task.Run using a callback
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Code">The caller is called back on the new Task (on a different thread)</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public async static Task RunAsync(Action Code)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Code();
});
return;
}
}
You can add other things to the Extension method such as wrapping it in a Try/Catch statement, allowing caller to tell it what type to return after completion, an exception callback to caller:
Adding Try Catch, Auto Exception Logging and CallBack
/// <summary>
/// Run Async
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type to return</typeparam>
/// <param name="Code">The callback to the code</param>
/// <param name="Error">The handled and logged exception if one occurs</param>
/// <returns>The type expected as a competed task</returns>
public async static Task<T> RunAsync<T>(Func<string,T> Code, Action<Exception> Error)
{
var done = await Task<T>.Run(() =>
{
T result = default(T);
try
{
result = Code("Code Here");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Unhandled Exception: " + ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
Error(ex);
}
return result;
});
return done;
}
public async void HowToUse()
{
//We now inject the type we want the async routine to return!
var result = await RunAsync<bool>((code) => {
//write code here, all exceptions are logged via the wrapped try catch.
//return what is needed
return someBoolValue;
},
error => {
//exceptions are already handled but are sent back here for further processing
});
if (result)
{
//we can now process the result because the code above awaited for the completion before
//moving to this statement
}
}
This is not the recommended way to solve this error but you can suppress it quickly, it will do the job . I prefer this for prototypes or demos . add
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false
in Form1() constructor .
You need to look at the Backgroundworker example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Especially how it interacts with the UI layer. Based on your posting, this seems to answer your issues.
Here is an alternative way if the object you are working with doesn't have
(InvokeRequired)
This is useful if you are working with the main form in a class other than the main form with an object that is in the main form, but doesn't have InvokeRequired
delegate void updateMainFormObject(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text);
private void updateFormObjectType(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
MainForm.Invoke(new updateMainFormObject(UpdateObject), objectWithoutInvoke, text);
}
public void UpdateObject(ToolStripStatusLabel objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
objectWithoutInvoke.Text = text;
}
It works the same as above, but it is a different approach if you don't have an object with invokerequired, but do have access to the MainForm
I found a need for this while programming an iOS-Phone monotouch app controller in a visual studio winforms prototype project outside of xamarin stuidio. Preferring to program in VS over xamarin studio as much as possible, I wanted the controller to be completely decoupled from the phone framework. This way implementing this for other frameworks like Android and Windows Phone would be much easier for future uses.
I wanted a solution where the GUI could respond to events without the burden of dealing with the cross threading switching code behind every button click. Basically let the class controller handle that to keep the client code simple. You could possibly have many events on the GUI where as if you could handle it in one place in the class would be cleaner. I am not a multi theading expert, let me know if this is flawed.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ExampleController.MyController controller;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
controller = new ExampleController.MyController((ISynchronizeInvoke) this);
controller.Finished += controller_Finished;
}
void controller_Finished(string returnValue)
{
label1.Text = returnValue;
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
controller.SubmitTask("Do It");
}
}
The GUI form is unaware the controller is running asynchronous tasks.
public delegate void FinishedTasksHandler(string returnValue);
public class MyController
{
private ISynchronizeInvoke _syn;
public MyController(ISynchronizeInvoke syn) { _syn = syn; }
public event FinishedTasksHandler Finished;
public void SubmitTask(string someValue)
{
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state => submitTask(someValue));
}
private void submitTask(string someValue)
{
someValue = someValue + " " + DateTime.Now.ToString();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
//Finished(someValue); This causes cross threading error if called like this.
if (Finished != null)
{
if (_syn.InvokeRequired)
{
_syn.Invoke(Finished, new object[] { someValue });
}
else
{
Finished(someValue);
}
}
}
}
Simple and re-usable way to work around this problem.
Extension Method
public static class FormExts
{
public static void LoadOnUI(this Form frm, Action action)
{
if (frm.InvokeRequired) frm.Invoke(action);
else action.Invoke();
}
}
Sample Usage
private void OnAnyEvent(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
this.LoadOnUI(() =>
{
label1.Text = "";
button1.Text = "";
});
}
Along the same lines as previous answers,
but a very short addition that Allows to use all Control properties without having cross thread invokation exception.
Helper Method
/// <summary>
/// Helper method to determin if invoke required, if so will rerun method on correct thread.
/// if not do nothing.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="c">Control that might require invoking</param>
/// <param name="a">action to preform on control thread if so.</param>
/// <returns>true if invoke required</returns>
public bool ControlInvokeRequired(Control c, Action a)
{
if (c.InvokeRequired) c.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
a();
}));
else return false;
return true;
}
Sample Usage
// usage on textbox
public void UpdateTextBox1(String text)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(textBox1, () => UpdateTextBox1(text))) return;
textBox1.Text = ellapsed;
}
//Or any control
public void UpdateControl(Color c, String s)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(myControl, () => UpdateControl(c, s))) return;
myControl.Text = s;
myControl.BackColor = c;
}
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
//your code here;
}));
For example to get the text from a Control of the UI thread:
Private Delegate Function GetControlTextInvoker(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Private Function GetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Dim text As String
If ctl.InvokeRequired Then
text = CStr(ctl.Invoke(
New GetControlTextInvoker(AddressOf GetControlText), ctl))
Else
text = ctl.Text
End If
Return text
End Function
Same question : how-to-update-the-gui-from-another-thread-in-c
Two Ways:
Return value in e.result and use it to set yout textbox value in backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted event
Declare some variable to hold these kind of values in a separate class (which will work as data holder) . Create static instance of this class adn you can access it over any thread.
Example:
public class data_holder_for_controls
{
//it will hold value for your label
public string status = string.Empty;
}
class Demo
{
public static data_holder_for_controls d1 = new data_holder_for_controls();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(perform_logic);
Thread t1 = new Thread(ts);
t1.Start();
t1.Join();
//your_label.Text=d1.status; --- can access it from any thread
}
public static void perform_logic()
{
//put some code here in this function
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//statements here
}
//set result in status variable
d1.status = "Task done";
}
}
Simply use this:
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
YourControl.Property= value; // runs thread safe
});
Action y; //declared inside class
label1.Invoke(y=()=>label1.Text="text");
There are two options for cross thread operations.
Control.InvokeRequired Property
and second one is to use
SynchronizationContext Post Method
Control.InvokeRequired is only useful when working controls inherited from Control class while SynchronizationContext can be used anywhere. Some useful information is as following links
Cross Thread Update UI | .Net
Cross Thread Update UI using SynchronizationContext | .Net
I have a scenario. (Windows Forms, C#, .NET)
There is a main form which hosts some user control.
The user control does some heavy data operation, such that if I directly call the UserControl_Load method the UI become nonresponsive for the duration for load method execution.
To overcome this I load data on different thread (trying to change existing code as little as I can)
I used a background worker thread which will be loading the data and when done will notify the application that it has done its work.
Now came a real problem. All the UI (main form and its child usercontrols) was created on the primary main thread. In the LOAD method of the usercontrol I'm fetching data based on the values of some control (like textbox) on userControl.
The pseudocode would look like this:
CODE 1
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // This gives exception
{
//Load data corresponding to "MyName".
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage.
}
}
The Exception it gave was
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.
To know more about this I did some googling and a suggestion came up like using the following code
CODE 2
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (InvokeRequired) // Line #1
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod));
return;
}
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // Now it won't give an exception
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage
}
}
But it still seems that I've come back to square one. The Application again
becomes unresponsive. It seems to be due to the execution of line #1 if condition. The loading task is again done by the parent thread and not the third that I spawned.
I don't know whether I perceived this right or wrong.
How do I resolve this and also what is the effect of execution of Line#1 if block?
The situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that the corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
As per Prerak K's update comment (since deleted):
I guess I have not presented the question properly.
Situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
The solution you want then should look like:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
string name = "";
if(textbox1.InvokeRequired)
{
textbox1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { name = textbox1.text; }));
}
if(name == "MyName")
{
// do whatever
}
}
Do your serious processing in the separate thread before you attempt to switch back to the control's thread. For example:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
if(textbox1.text=="MyName") //<<======Now it wont give exception**
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be
//bound to grid at some later stage
if(InvokeRequired)
{
// after we've done all the processing,
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate {
// load the control with the appropriate data
}));
return;
}
}
}
Threading Model in UI
Please read the Threading Model in UI applications (old VB link is here) in order to understand basic concepts. The link navigates to page that describes the WPF threading model. However, Windows Forms utilizes the same idea.
The UI Thread
There is only one thread (UI thread), that is allowed to access System.Windows.Forms.Control and its subclasses members.
Attempt to access member of System.Windows.Forms.Control from different thread than UI thread will cause cross-thread exception.
Since there is only one thread, all UI operations are queued as work items into that thread:
If there is no work for UI thread, then there are idle gaps that can be used by a not-UI related computing.
In order to use mentioned gaps use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods:
BeginInvoke and Invoke methods
The computing overhead of method being invoked should be small as well as computing overhead of event handler methods because the UI thread is used there - the same that is responsible for handling user input. Regardless if this is System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke.
To perform computing expensive operation always use separate thread. Since .NET 2.0 BackgroundWorker is dedicated to performing computing expensive operations in Windows Forms. However in new solutions you should use the async-await pattern as described here.
Use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods only to update a user interface. If you use them for heavy computations, your application will block:
Invoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke causes separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
BeginInvoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke doesn't cause the separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
Code solution
Read answers on question How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?.
For C# 5.0 and .NET 4.5 the recommended solution is here.
You only want to use Invoke or BeginInvoke for the bare minimum piece of work required to change the UI. Your "heavy" method should execute on another thread (e.g. via BackgroundWorker) but then using Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke just to update the UI. That way your UI thread will be free to handle UI events etc.
See my threading article for a WinForms example - although the article was written before BackgroundWorker arrived on the scene, and I'm afraid I haven't updated it in that respect. BackgroundWorker merely simplifies the callback a bit.
I know its too late now. However even today if you are having trouble accessing cross thread controls? This is the shortest answer till date :P
Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
label1.Text = "WooHoo!!!";
}));
This is how i access any form control from a thread.
I have had this problem with the FileSystemWatcher and found that the following code solved the problem:
fsw.SynchronizingObject = this
The control then uses the current form object to deal with the events, and will therefore be on the same thread.
I find the check-and-invoke code which needs to be littered within all methods related to forms to be way too verbose and unneeded. Here's a simple extension method which lets you do away with it completely:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void Invoke<TControlType>(this TControlType control, Action<TControlType> del)
where TControlType : Control
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
control.Invoke(new Action(() => del(control)));
else
del(control);
}
}
And then you can simply do this:
textbox1.Invoke(t => t.Text = "A");
No more messing around - simple.
Controls in .NET are not generally thread safe. That means you shouldn't access a control from a thread other than the one where it lives. To get around this, you need to invoke the control, which is what your 2nd sample is attempting.
However, in your case all you've done is pass the long-running method back to the main thread. Of course, that's not really what you want to do. You need to rethink this a little so that all you're doing on the main thread is setting a quick property here and there.
The cleanest (and proper) solution for UI cross-threading issues is to use SynchronizationContext, see Synchronizing calls to the UI in a multi-threaded application article, it explains it very nicely.
Follow the simplest (in my opinion) way to modify objects from another thread:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
namespace TESTE
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Action<string> DelegateTeste_ModifyText = THREAD_MOD;
Invoke(DelegateTeste_ModifyText, "MODIFY BY THREAD");
}
private void THREAD_MOD(string teste)
{
textBox1.Text = teste;
}
}
}
A new look using Async/Await and callbacks. You only need one line of code if you keep the extension method in your project.
/// <summary>
/// A new way to use Tasks for Asynchronous calls
/// </summary>
public class Example
{
/// <summary>
/// No more delegates, background workers etc. just one line of code as shown below
/// Note it is dependent on the XTask class shown next.
/// </summary>
public async void ExampleMethod()
{
//Still on GUI/Original Thread here
//Do your updates before the next line of code
await XTask.RunAsync(() =>
{
//Running an asynchronous task here
//Cannot update GUI Thread here, but can do lots of work
});
//Can update GUI/Original thread on this line
}
}
/// <summary>
/// A class containing extension methods for the Task class
/// Put this file in folder named Extensions
/// Use prefix of X for the class it Extends
/// </summary>
public static class XTask
{
/// <summary>
/// RunAsync is an extension method that encapsulates the Task.Run using a callback
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Code">The caller is called back on the new Task (on a different thread)</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public async static Task RunAsync(Action Code)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Code();
});
return;
}
}
You can add other things to the Extension method such as wrapping it in a Try/Catch statement, allowing caller to tell it what type to return after completion, an exception callback to caller:
Adding Try Catch, Auto Exception Logging and CallBack
/// <summary>
/// Run Async
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type to return</typeparam>
/// <param name="Code">The callback to the code</param>
/// <param name="Error">The handled and logged exception if one occurs</param>
/// <returns>The type expected as a competed task</returns>
public async static Task<T> RunAsync<T>(Func<string,T> Code, Action<Exception> Error)
{
var done = await Task<T>.Run(() =>
{
T result = default(T);
try
{
result = Code("Code Here");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Unhandled Exception: " + ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
Error(ex);
}
return result;
});
return done;
}
public async void HowToUse()
{
//We now inject the type we want the async routine to return!
var result = await RunAsync<bool>((code) => {
//write code here, all exceptions are logged via the wrapped try catch.
//return what is needed
return someBoolValue;
},
error => {
//exceptions are already handled but are sent back here for further processing
});
if (result)
{
//we can now process the result because the code above awaited for the completion before
//moving to this statement
}
}
This is not the recommended way to solve this error but you can suppress it quickly, it will do the job . I prefer this for prototypes or demos . add
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false
in Form1() constructor .
You need to look at the Backgroundworker example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Especially how it interacts with the UI layer. Based on your posting, this seems to answer your issues.
Here is an alternative way if the object you are working with doesn't have
(InvokeRequired)
This is useful if you are working with the main form in a class other than the main form with an object that is in the main form, but doesn't have InvokeRequired
delegate void updateMainFormObject(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text);
private void updateFormObjectType(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
MainForm.Invoke(new updateMainFormObject(UpdateObject), objectWithoutInvoke, text);
}
public void UpdateObject(ToolStripStatusLabel objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
objectWithoutInvoke.Text = text;
}
It works the same as above, but it is a different approach if you don't have an object with invokerequired, but do have access to the MainForm
I found a need for this while programming an iOS-Phone monotouch app controller in a visual studio winforms prototype project outside of xamarin stuidio. Preferring to program in VS over xamarin studio as much as possible, I wanted the controller to be completely decoupled from the phone framework. This way implementing this for other frameworks like Android and Windows Phone would be much easier for future uses.
I wanted a solution where the GUI could respond to events without the burden of dealing with the cross threading switching code behind every button click. Basically let the class controller handle that to keep the client code simple. You could possibly have many events on the GUI where as if you could handle it in one place in the class would be cleaner. I am not a multi theading expert, let me know if this is flawed.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ExampleController.MyController controller;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
controller = new ExampleController.MyController((ISynchronizeInvoke) this);
controller.Finished += controller_Finished;
}
void controller_Finished(string returnValue)
{
label1.Text = returnValue;
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
controller.SubmitTask("Do It");
}
}
The GUI form is unaware the controller is running asynchronous tasks.
public delegate void FinishedTasksHandler(string returnValue);
public class MyController
{
private ISynchronizeInvoke _syn;
public MyController(ISynchronizeInvoke syn) { _syn = syn; }
public event FinishedTasksHandler Finished;
public void SubmitTask(string someValue)
{
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state => submitTask(someValue));
}
private void submitTask(string someValue)
{
someValue = someValue + " " + DateTime.Now.ToString();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
//Finished(someValue); This causes cross threading error if called like this.
if (Finished != null)
{
if (_syn.InvokeRequired)
{
_syn.Invoke(Finished, new object[] { someValue });
}
else
{
Finished(someValue);
}
}
}
}
Simple and re-usable way to work around this problem.
Extension Method
public static class FormExts
{
public static void LoadOnUI(this Form frm, Action action)
{
if (frm.InvokeRequired) frm.Invoke(action);
else action.Invoke();
}
}
Sample Usage
private void OnAnyEvent(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
this.LoadOnUI(() =>
{
label1.Text = "";
button1.Text = "";
});
}
Along the same lines as previous answers,
but a very short addition that Allows to use all Control properties without having cross thread invokation exception.
Helper Method
/// <summary>
/// Helper method to determin if invoke required, if so will rerun method on correct thread.
/// if not do nothing.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="c">Control that might require invoking</param>
/// <param name="a">action to preform on control thread if so.</param>
/// <returns>true if invoke required</returns>
public bool ControlInvokeRequired(Control c, Action a)
{
if (c.InvokeRequired) c.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
a();
}));
else return false;
return true;
}
Sample Usage
// usage on textbox
public void UpdateTextBox1(String text)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(textBox1, () => UpdateTextBox1(text))) return;
textBox1.Text = ellapsed;
}
//Or any control
public void UpdateControl(Color c, String s)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(myControl, () => UpdateControl(c, s))) return;
myControl.Text = s;
myControl.BackColor = c;
}
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
//your code here;
}));
For example to get the text from a Control of the UI thread:
Private Delegate Function GetControlTextInvoker(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Private Function GetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Dim text As String
If ctl.InvokeRequired Then
text = CStr(ctl.Invoke(
New GetControlTextInvoker(AddressOf GetControlText), ctl))
Else
text = ctl.Text
End If
Return text
End Function
Same question : how-to-update-the-gui-from-another-thread-in-c
Two Ways:
Return value in e.result and use it to set yout textbox value in backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted event
Declare some variable to hold these kind of values in a separate class (which will work as data holder) . Create static instance of this class adn you can access it over any thread.
Example:
public class data_holder_for_controls
{
//it will hold value for your label
public string status = string.Empty;
}
class Demo
{
public static data_holder_for_controls d1 = new data_holder_for_controls();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(perform_logic);
Thread t1 = new Thread(ts);
t1.Start();
t1.Join();
//your_label.Text=d1.status; --- can access it from any thread
}
public static void perform_logic()
{
//put some code here in this function
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//statements here
}
//set result in status variable
d1.status = "Task done";
}
}
Simply use this:
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
YourControl.Property= value; // runs thread safe
});
Action y; //declared inside class
label1.Invoke(y=()=>label1.Text="text");
There are two options for cross thread operations.
Control.InvokeRequired Property
and second one is to use
SynchronizationContext Post Method
Control.InvokeRequired is only useful when working controls inherited from Control class while SynchronizationContext can be used anywhere. Some useful information is as following links
Cross Thread Update UI | .Net
Cross Thread Update UI using SynchronizationContext | .Net
UpDate1:
More detail: Thread 1 and 2 must be continuously active. Thread 1 is updating its GUI and doing HTTP POSTs. Thread 2 is using HTTPListener for incoming HTTP POSTs, and supplying that data to Thread 1. So the GUI needs to be display with current Textbox values and updated when Thread 2 supplies the data. Will Servy's or another approach allow both Threads to do their work concurrently? It appears the main thread waits for Thread 2 to complete it's work. It then takes the prepWork and does work with it. I coded in Servy's example but I couldn't find a definition for Run() with the Task class. It's library has no such method. I'm using Net 4.0 on VS 2010. Is there an equivalent method to use? Start() didn't compile either and I understand you can only run the Task once. Thanks for any additional assistance you can share.
Original Question:
I've tested code that will successfully kick off my event and update my GUI textbox in an event handler if the event is kicked off in what I understand as the UI Thread 1. When I attempt to call a Thread 1 method Fire() from my independent Thread 2 method PrepareDisplay(), Fire() is called and in turns fires off the event. I put in some Thread-safe call code (modeled from MSDN tutorial on Thread-Safety in WinForms), but the event handler still doesn't update the Textbox. When stepping thru the code, it appears that the InvokeRequired is false. My eventual goal is to pass data from Thread 2 to UI Thread 1 and update the Textboxes with the new data. I don't understand why the Thread-safe code isn't enabling this. Can someone help me understand this better, and what I have neglected? Below is the code:
Thank you very much,
namespace TstTxtBoxUpdate
{
static class Program
{
/// <summary>
/// The main entry point for the application.
/// </summary>
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
Aag_PrepDisplay aag_Prep1 = new Aag_PrepDisplay();
Thread AagPrepDisplayThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(aag_Prep1.PrepareDisplay));
AagPrepDisplayThread.Start();
while(!AagPrepDisplayThread.IsAlive)
;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Run(new SetOperation());
}
}
}
namespace TstTxtBoxUpdate
{
// Thread 1: UI
public partial class SetOperation : Form
{
private string text;
public event Action<object> OnChDet;
delegate void SetTextCallback(string text);
private Thread demoThread = null;
public SetOperation()
{
InitializeComponent();
OnChDet += chDetDisplayHandler;
}
public void FireEvent(Aag_PrepDisplay aagPrep)
{
OnChDet(mName);
}
private void chDetDisplayHandler(object name)
{
this.demoThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThreadProcSafe));
this.demoThread.Start();
}
private void ThreadProcSafe()
{
this.SetText("402.5");
}
private void SetText(string text)
{
if(this.actFreqChan1.InvokeRequired)
{
SetTextCallback d = new SetTextCallback(SetText);
this.Invoke(d, new object[] { text });
}
else
{
this.actFreqChan1.Text = text;
}
}
}
}
namespace TstTxtBoxUpdate
{
// Thread 2: Data prepare
public class Aag_PrepDisplay
{
#region Fields
private Aag_PrepDisplay mAagPrep;
#endregion Fields
#region Properties
public Aag_PrepDisplay AagPrepDisp;
public Aag_PrepDisplay AagPrep
{
get { return mAagPrep; }
set { mAagPrep = value; }
}
#endregion Properties
#region Methods
public void PrepareDisplay()
{
mAagPrep = new Aag_PrepDisplay();
SetOperation setOp1 = new SetOperation();
setOp1.FireEvent(mAagPrep); // calls Thread 1 method that will fire the event
}
#endregion Methods
}
}
You're getting to the point of calling InvokeRequired when your main thread is still on Thread.Sleep. It hasn't even gotten to the point of creating a message loop yet (which is one in Application.Run) so there is no message loop for Invoke to marshal a call to.
There are all sorts of issues here. You're creating multiple instance of your form, one that you show, and an entirely different form that you're setting the text of. You clearly did not intend to do this; you want to have a single form that you're setting the text for.
Your main thread should not be doing a busywait until your first thread finishes. It likely shouldn't be there at all. If it weren't for the fact that your new thread is creating yet another new thread, the fact that your main thread is blocking until the second thread finishes and the second thread is trying to marshall a call to the main thread, it would normally deadlock. You shouldn't really be creating a second new thread here at all, but this is a case of two bugs "cancelling each other out". It prevents the deadlock, but both are still incorrect, and inhibit your ability to get to a working solution.
You also shouldn't have the Thread.Sleep in the main thread at all. I have no idea what purpose that's trying to achieve.
If you're goal is simply to start some long running work before showing the first form and then to update that form when you have your results, you're doing way more work than you need to do.
To do this we can have our form accept a Task in its constructor representing the completion of the long running work. It can add a continuation to that task to set a label, or a textbox, or do...whatever, with the results of that Task.
public class SetOperation : Form
{
private Label label;
public SetOperation(Task<string> prepWork)
{
prepWork.ContinueWith(t =>
{
label.Text = t.Result;
}, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
}
}
Then the main thread simply needs to start a new Task to do the given work in a thread pool thread and pass that in to our form:
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
Task<string> prepWork = Task.Run(() => DoWork());
Application.Run(new SetOperation(prepWork));
}
private static string DoWork()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);//placeholder for real work
return "hi";
}
And we're done. Note that DoWork should probably be in its own class designed for handling your business logic; it probably shouldn't be stuck into the Program class.
Learning C#, WPF. Currently trying to get to grips with Dispatchers, specifically between threads and other classes.
I got my dispatcher to work when in the 'MainWindow' class, but when I separate it out as below into another class I get the compile error message "The type 'System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher' has no constructors defined"
Clearly a basic learning error, but I can't figure it out. Code below, a push in the right direction please :)
namespace threading_dispatcher_learn
{
/// <summary>
/// Interaction logic for MainWindow.xaml
/// </summary>
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public delegate void MyDel();
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
label1.Content = "Label1";
this.label2.Content = this.Dispatcher.Thread.ManagedThreadId;
Myupdator updateclass = new Myupdator();
Thread MyNewThread;
MyNewThread = new Thread(updateclass.UpdateLabel);
MyNewThread.Start();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show("Clicked");
}
}
public class Myupdator
{
public void UpdateLabel()
{
MainWindow.MyDel del1 = delegate()
{
try
{
// label1.Content = "Update 2";
//Thread.Sleep(3000);
MessageBox.Show("Message 2");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.ToString());
}
};
/* Now removed
Dispatcher myDispather = new Dispatcher();
myDispather.BeginInvoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal, del1);
*/
//now added
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal, del1);
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.InvokeShutdown();
}
}
}
UPDATE: Code modified above, is this the correct way? Am I understanding you correctly? Although nothing in 'del1' is getting called.
You are not supposed to create a Dispatcher instane using a constructor. To access the Dispatcher for the current thread (or create a new one if one does not already exist) simply get the value of Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher. Do not forget to shut down the dispatcher (e.g. with Dispatcher.InvokeShutdown) when it's no longer needed.
However, why are you doing this? In the overwhelming majority of cases, creating a Dispatcher is the wrong thing to do. Dispatcher models a Windows message loop, so it's only meaningful on UI threads.
Update: It seems that you are simply trying to modify the contents of the label and show a dialog box. You must not create a new Dispatcher for this; instead, use the Dispatcher already created on your UI thread. You need to pass to your new thread the value of Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher as taken from your main thread, or alternatively you need to pass a reference to any UI control (e.g. a label, or the window itself).
For example:
var mainWindow = ... ; // you need to pass this to your new thread somehow
mainWindow.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal, del1);
Let me repeat the rule of thumb once again: unless you have extensive experience in multithreaded applications, creating a new Dispatcher is always the wrong thing to do.
I have a windows forms program with a form MainForm. On a button press I start a code that runs (pulses) on every 0.5secs on another thread. I want to modify many things, like labels, progressbars on my MainForm, from the Pulse method. How is this possible?
So I would like to know, how to interract with variables, values, in that thread, and the MainForm. Modify each other, etc..
On foo button click, I tell my pulsator to start.
Pulsator.Initialize();
Here is the Pulsator class:
public static class Pulsator
{
private static Thread _worker;
public static void Initialize()
{
_worker = new Thread(Pulse);
_worker.IsBackground = true;
_worker.Start();
}
public static void Close()
{
if (_worker != null)
{
_worker.Abort();
while (_worker.IsAlive || _worker.ThreadState != ThreadState.Stopped)
{
//closing
}
}
}
public static void Pulse()
{
if (_worker != null)
{
while (true)
{
SomeOtherClass.Pulse();
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
else
{
SomeOtherClass.Pulse(); // yeah I know this doesnt needed
}
}
}
SomeOtherClass Pulse method looks like :
public static void Pulse()
{
//here I will have several values, variables, and I want to show results,
// values on my MainForm, like:
Random random = new Random();
MainForm.label1.Text = random.Next(123,321).ToString(); // I hope you know what I mean
}
Of course it's much complicated, it's just a silly example.
Generally, in WinForms it's not safe to modify the state of visual controls outside the thread that owns the control's underlying unmanaged resources (window handle). You have to use the Control.Invoke method to schedule executing the modification on the control's owning thread.
As others already mentioned, you have to use Control.Invoke to change the UI controls from the background thread.
Another option is to use System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker (it's available in the form designer toolbox). You could then take a regular forms timer, to call the RunWorkerAsync-Method and do your background work in the DoWork event handler, which is automatically called from another thread.
From there, you can hand data back to the main thread, by calling ReportProgress. This will raise the ProgressChanged event in the main thread, where you are free to update all your UI controls.
Why not use a System.Timers.Timer?
E.g.:
trainPassageTimer = new Timer(500);
trainPassageTimer.AutoReset = true;
trainPassageTimer.Elapsed += TimeElapsed;
...
private void TimeElapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs elapsedEventArgs)
{
// Do stuff
// Remember to use BeginInvoke or Invoke to access Windows.Forms controls
}
C# 2 or higher (VS2005) has anonymous delegates (and C# 3 has lambdas which are a slightly neater version of the same idea).
These allow a thread to be started with a function that can "see" variables in the surrounding scope. So there is no need to explicitly pass it anything. On the downside, there is the danger that the thread will accidentally depend on something that it should not (e.g. a variable that is changing in other threads).
_worker = new Thread(delegate
{
// can refer to variables in enclosing scope(s).
});