I've been researching on how to do this for about a week and I'm still not sure about the correct approach, in some examples I see the Thread class is used in others I see Invoke is used which has confused me a bid.
I have a GUI program in c# which contains a textBox which will be used to give information to the user.
The problem I'm facing is that I'm not sure how I can append text to textBox from another class which is running on another thread. If someone can show me a working example, it would help me greatly.
Best Regards!
Easy:
MainWindow.myInstance.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(delegate() {MainWindow.myInstance.myTextBox.Text = "some text";});
WHERE MainWindow.myInstance is a public static variable set to the an instance of MainWindow (should be set in the constructor and will be null until an instance is constructed).
Ok thats a lot in one line let me go over it:
When you want to update a UI control you, as you say, have to do it from the UI thread. There is built in way to pass a delegate (a method) to the UI thread: the Dispatcher. I used MainWindow.myInstance which (as all UI components) contains reference to the Dispatcher - you could alternatively save a reference to the Dispatcher in your own variable:
Dispatcher uiDispatcher = MainWindow.myInstance.Dispatcher;
Once you have the Dispatcher you can either Invoke() of BeginInvoke() passing a delegate to be run on the UI thread. The only difference is Invoke() will only return once the delegate has been run (i.e. in your case the TextBox's Text has been set) whereas BeginInvoke() will return immediately so your other thread you are calling from can continue (the Dispatcher will run your delegate soon as it can which will probably be straight away anyway).
I passed an anonymous delegate above:
delegate() {myTextBox.Text = "some text";}
The bit between the {} is the method block. This is called anonymous because only one is created and it doesnt have a name - but I could instantiated a delegate:
Action myDelegate = new Action(UpdateTextMethod);
void UpdateTextMethod()
{
myTextBox.Text = "new text";
}
Then passed that:
uiDispatcher.Invoke(myDelegate);
I also used the Action class which is a built in delegate but you could have created your own - you can read up more about delegates on MSDN as this is going a bit off topic..
Sounds like you're using a background thread for processing, but want to keep the UI responsive? The BackgroundWorker sounds like the ticket:
The BackgroundWorker class allows you
to run an operation on a separate,
dedicated thread. Time-consuming
operations like downloads and database
transactions can cause your user
interface (UI) to seem as though it
has stopped responding while they are
running. When you want a responsive UI
and you are faced with long delays
associated with such operations, the
BackgroundWorker class provides a
convenient solution.
Just use BackgroundWorker for the same. It is simple and takes away the pain of managing threads of your own. for more, you can see: http://dotnetperls.com/backgroundworker
Related
In the book Programming C#, it has some sample code about SynchronizationContext:
SynchronizationContext originalContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate {
string text = File.ReadAllText(#"c:\temp\log.txt");
originalContext.Post(delegate {
myTextBox.Text = text;
}, null);
});
I'm a beginner in threads, so please answer in detail.
First, I don't know what does context mean, what does the program save in the originalContext? And when the Post method is fired, what will the UI thread do?
If I ask some silly things, please correct me, thanks!
EDIT: For example, what if I just write myTextBox.Text = text; in the method, what's the difference?
What does SynchronizationContext do?
Simply put, SynchronizationContext represents a location "where" code might be executed. Delegates that are passed to its Send or Post method will then be invoked in that location. (Post is the non-blocking / asynchronous version of Send.)
Every thread can have a SynchronizationContext instance associated with it. The running thread can be associated with a synchronization context by calling the static SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext method, and the current context of the running thread can be queried via the SynchronizationContext.Current property.
Despite what I just wrote (each thread having an associated synchronization context), a SynchronizationContext does not necessarily represent a specific thread; it can also forward invocation of the delegates passed to it to any of several threads (e.g. to a ThreadPool worker thread), or (at least in theory) to a specific CPU core, or even to another network host. Where your delegates end up running is dependent on the type of SynchronizationContext used.
Windows Forms will install a WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext on the thread on which the first form is created. (This thread is commonly called "the UI thread".) This type of synchronization context invokes the delegates passed to it on exactly that thread. This is very useful since Windows Forms, like many other UI frameworks, only permits manipulation of controls on the same thread on which they were created.
What if I just write myTextBox.Text = text; in the method, what's the difference?
The code that you've passed to ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem will be run on a thread pool worker thread. That is, it will not execute on the thread on which your myTextBox was created, so Windows Forms will sooner or later (especially in Release builds) throw an exception, telling you that you may not access myTextBox from across another thread.
This is why you have to somehow "switch back" from the worker thread to the "UI thread" (where myTextBox was created) before that particular assignment. This is done as follows:
While you are still on the UI thread, capture Windows Forms' SynchronizationContext there, and store a reference to it in a variable (originalContext) for later use. You must query SynchronizationContext.Current at this point; if you queried it inside the code passed to ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem, you might get whatever synchronization context is associated with the thread pool's worker thread. Once you have stored a reference to Windows Forms' context, you can use it anywhere and at any time to "send" code to the UI thread.
Whenever you need to manipulate a UI element (but are not, or might not be, on the UI thread anymore), access Windows Forms' synchronization context via originalContext, and hand off the code that will manipulate the UI to either Send or Post.
Final remarks and hints:
What synchronization contexts won't do for you is telling you which code must run in a specific location / context, and which code can just be executed normally, without passing it to a SynchronizationContext. In order to decide that, you must know the rules and requirements of the framework you're programming against — Windows Forms in this case.
So remember this simple rule for Windows Forms: DO NOT access controls or forms from a thread other than the one that created them. If you must do this, use the SynchronizationContext mechanism as described above, or Control.BeginInvoke (which is a Windows Forms-specific way of doing exactly the same thing).
If you're programming against .NET 4.5 or later, you can make your life much easier by converting your code that explicitly uses SynchronizationContext, ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem, control.BeginInvoke, etc. over to the new async / await keywords and the Task Parallel Library (TPL), i.e. the API surrounding the Task and Task<TResult> classes. These will, to a very high degree, take care of capturing the UI thread's synchronization context, starting an asynchronous operation, then getting back onto the UI thread so you can process the operation's result.
I'd like to add to other answers, SynchronizationContext.Post just queues a callback for later execution on the target thread (normally during the next cycle of the target thread's message loop), and then execution continues on the calling thread. On the other hand, SynchronizationContext.Send tries to execute the callback on the target thread immediately, which blocks the calling thread and may result in deadlock. In both cases, there is a possibility for code reentrancy (entering a class method on the same thread of execution before the previous call to the same method has returned).
If you're familiar with Win32 programming model, a very close analogy would be PostMessage and SendMessage APIs, which you can call to dispatch a message from a thread different from the target window's one.
Here is a very good explanation of what synchronization contexts are:
It's All About the SynchronizationContext.
It stores the synchronization provider, a class derived from SynchronizationContext. In this case that will probably be an instance of WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext. That class uses the Control.Invoke() and Control.BeginInvoke() methods to implement the Send() and Post() methods. Or it can be DispatcherSynchronizationContext, it uses Dispatcher.Invoke() and BeginInvoke(). In a Winforms or WPF app, that provider is automatically installed as soon as you create a window.
When you run code on another thread, like the thread-pool thread used in the snippet, then you have to be careful that you don't directly use objects that are thread-unsafe. Like any user interface object, you must update the TextBox.Text property from the thread that created the TextBox. The Post() method ensures that the delegate target runs on that thread.
Beware that this snippet is a bit dangerous, it will only work correctly when you call it from the UI thread. SynchronizationContext.Current has different values in different threads. Only the UI thread has a usable value. And is the reason the code had to copy it. A more readable and safer way to do it, in a Winforms app:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate {
string text = File.ReadAllText(#"c:\temp\log.txt");
myTextBox.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => {
myTextBox.Text = text;
}));
});
Which has the advantage that it works when called from any thread. The advantage of using SynchronizationContext.Current is that it still works whether the code is used in Winforms or WPF, it matters in a library. This is certainly not a good example of such code, you always know what kind of TextBox you have here so you always know whether to use Control.BeginInvoke or Dispatcher.BeginInvoke. Actually using SynchronizationContext.Current is not that common.
The book is trying to teach you about threading, so using this flawed example is okayish. In real life, in the few cases where you might consider using SynchronizationContext.Current, you'd still leave it up to C#'s async/await keywords or TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() to do it for you. But do note that they still misbehave the way the snippet does when you use them on the wrong thread, for the exact same reason. A very common question around here, the extra level of abstraction is useful but makes it harder to figure out why they don't work correctly. Hopefully the book also tells you when not to use it :)
The purpose of the synchronization context here is to make sure that myTextbox.Text = text; gets called on the main UI thread.
Windows requires that GUI controls be accessed only by the thread they were created with. If you try assign the text in a background thread without first synchronizing (through any of several means, such as this or the Invoke pattern) then an exception will be thrown.
What this does is save the synchronization context prior to creating the background thread, then the background thread uses the context.Post method execute the GUI code.
Yes, the code you've shown is basically useless. Why create a background thread, only to immediately need to go back to the main UI thread? It's just an example.
SynchronizationContext basically is a provider of callback delegates' execution. It is responsible for ensuring that the delegates are run in a given execution context after a particular portion of code (encapsulated inside a Task object in .Net TPL) in a program has completed its execution.
From technical point of view, SC is a simple C# class that is oriented to support and provide its function specifically for Task Parallel Library objects.
Every .Net application except for console applications has a tailored implementation of this class based on the specific underlying framework, eg: WPF, WindowsForm, Asp Net, Silverlight, etc.
The importance of this object is bound to the synchronization between results returning from asynchronous execution of code, and the execution of dependent code that is waiting for results from that asynchronous work.
And the word "context" stands for execution context. That is, the current execution context where that waiting code will be executed- namely the synchronization between async code and its waiting code happens in a specific execution context. Thus this object is named SynchronizationContext.
It represents the execution context that will look after syncronization of async code and waiting code execution.
To the Source
Every thread has a context associated with it -- this is also known as the "current" context -- and these contexts can be shared across threads. The ExecutionContext contains relevant metadata of the current environment or context in which the program is in execution. The SynchronizationContext represents an abstraction -- it denotes the location where your application's code is executed.
A SynchronizationContext enables you to queue a task onto another context. Note that every thread can have its own SynchronizatonContext.
For example: Suppose you have two threads, Thread1 and Thread2. Say, Thread1 is doing some work, and then Thread1 wishes to execute code on Thread2. One possible way to do it is to ask Thread2 for its SynchronizationContext object, give it to Thread1, and then Thread1 can call SynchronizationContext.Send to execute the code on Thread2.
SynchronizationContext provides us a way to update a UI from a different thread (synchronously via the Send method or asynchronously via the Post method).
Take a look at the following example:
private void SynchronizationContext SyncContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;
private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(Work1);
thread.Start(SyncContext);
}
private void Work1(object state)
{
SynchronizationContext syncContext = state as SynchronizationContext;
syncContext.Post(UpdateTextBox, syncContext);
}
private void UpdateTextBox(object state)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
string text = File.ReadAllText(#"c:\temp\log.txt");
myTextBox.Text = text;
}
SynchronizationContext.Current will return the UI thread's sync context. How do I know this? At the start of every form or WPF app, the context will be set on the UI thread. If you create a WPF app and run my example, you'll see that when you click the button, it sleeps for roughly 1 second, then it will show the file's content. You might expect it won't because the caller of UpdateTextBox method (which is Work1) is a method passed to a Thread, therefore it should sleep that thread not the main UI thread, NOPE! Even though Work1 method is passed to a thread, notice that it also accepts an object which is the SyncContext. If you look at it, you'll see that the UpdateTextBox method is executed through the syncContext.Post method and not the Work1 method. Take a look at the following:
private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
string text = File.ReadAllText(#"c:\temp\log.txt");
myTextBox.Text = text;
}
The last example and this one executes the same. Both doesn't block the UI while it does it jobs.
In conclusion, think of SynchronizationContext as a thread. It's not a thread, it defines a thread (Note that not all thread has a SyncContext). Whenever we call the Post or Send method on it to update a UI, it's just like updating the UI normally from the main UI thread. If, for some reasons, you need to update the UI from a different thread, make sure that thread has the main UI thread's SyncContext and just call the Send or Post method on it with the method that you want to execute and you're all set.
Hope this helps you, mate!
This example is from Linqpad examples from Joseph Albahari but it really helps in understanding what Synchronization context does.
void WaitForTwoSecondsAsync (Action continuation)
{
continuation.Dump();
var syncContext = AsyncOperationManager.SynchronizationContext;
new Timer (_ => syncContext.Post (o => continuation(), _)).Change (2000, -1);
}
void Main()
{
Util.CreateSynchronizationContext();
("Waiting on thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId).Dump();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
WaitForTwoSecondsAsync (() => ("Done on thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId).Dump());
}
I know that simplest way to update a label from another thread is:
void DoSomething()
{
if (InvokeRequired)
{
Invoke(new MethodInvoker(DoSomething));
} else
{
// Do Something
}
}
My question is if instead of the if that require to update the GUI from another thread is it possible to change back to the main thread and update the GUI from there ?
Actually, the simplest way to do this is
Invoke(new MethodInvoker(DoSomething));
if you call it from another thread for sure, ie. if you know, that InvokeRequired will always be true.
Also, you could use a WinForms Timer to poll for changes of, say, a text field. This timer runs in the GUI thread. That is a pretty good solution if you have hundreds of events per second. Or at least "a lot of". This way you don't have too many switches to the GUI thread (which always take considerable amount of time).
Of course its possible ... you can use class called Dispatcher (System.Windows.Threading). The main purpose of this class is to dispatch "requests/calls" on thread ... and for gui thread there is instance of such dispatcher available for all controls. You can find this instance as member of your Window for example ...
The catch is that you using dispatcher alraedy (in code you posted) in some way ... if you call Invoke inside Form this default/gui dispatcher is used. And "IF" is there for reducing count of invocation from gui thread itself.
It works like "am i in ui thread? No? Then give dispatcher request of calling this same method on UI thread! ... Am i in UI Thred? Yes! Ok, i am doing something."
If you are 100% sure that you call this form other than UI thread, you can throw away that IF and just call dispatcher directly.
MyForm.Dispatcher.Invoke( mydelegate, params[] )
Or using some lambda instead of delegate or MethodInvoker ...
MyForm.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke( (Action)(()=>{ textbox.text = result; }), null);
And at all ... you can store (in form.load event for example) reference to UI Dispatcher to use in different class (some working class doing stuff on other )
If you creating some bigger UI stuff, my suggest for better UI and easier handling stuff like this is: ... consider some study of WPF and MVVM pattern and property change notifications.... it will give you very strong tool with "self updated" and very scalable UI and layers between datas, working threads and UI.
I am working on application which calls a function populate() on window_load
This function execution takes about 1 minute to complete. I wanna make this function to be called in separate thread.
I am using following code
Thread thread = new Thread(PopulateAndDrawGraph);
thread.Start();
in this function at last line is
nodeXlControl1.DrawGraph(true);
Here exception occurs
The calling thread cannot access this object because a different thread owns it.
what wrong is actually occurs
You are only allowed to access UI controls from within the same thread that created the control, which is usally the UI thread itself.
You will need to change your code in a way that it becomes thread-aware.
Here is a fantastic article that was published in the MSDN magazine: Give Your .NET-based Application a Fast and Responsive UI with Multiple Threads, which will explain in great detail how you can do what you want to do.
The article is a little old, but the same principles still apply.
I guess that the newer C# language features - like the new async / await keywords - should make your task a little easier.
But keep in mind that the same old limitations for accessing UI controls still exist. There is no way around to understand the basics as descripbed in the article.
There are 2 ways to handle this, a correct way and another way:
1: If you want a good working solution then this should do the trick, ..
private void SetText(string text)
{
// InvokeRequired required compares the thread ID of the
// calling thread to the thread ID of the creating thread.
// If these threads are different, it returns true.
if (this.textBox1.InvokeRequired)
{
SetTextCallback d = new SetTextCallback(SetText);
this.Invoke(d, new object[] { text });
}
else
{
this.textBox1.Text = text;
}
}
msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171728.aspx
2: but if you want a quick solution without guarantee that it will work properly, just set this variable:
Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = False
The problem is, that the any UI interaction has to occur in the main thread of the application. My advice is that you draw make the computation in the separate thread, but collect your results in an object. After the thread is finished you can extract the result from that object, and place it the nodeXlControl1.
Sadly i don't know the details about your objective, the sum of the solution is this.
If u can tell more details about this i may be able to further help you.
check this article (How to: Make Thread-Safe Calls) here out. It explains all the related items regarding cross thread calls. I also recommend that you look into the concept of "Task" in c#. Theres a very well written lib that helps you handle parallelism and similar concepts!
Since you are trying to access a UI element from a thread you need to call Invoke. So in PopulateAndDrawGraph you should have:
Invoke((Action)(() =>
{
nodeXlControl1.DrawGraph(true);
}));
You can't access the UI controls from any other thread except the thread which has created this control(you can access/change the UI control properties from the main UI thread only). Go through this link, i hope this makes you clear Cross-thread operation not valid
I have used BackgroundWorker class in c#.
I've found what looks like a very simple solution to my current situation.
My current situation is that I want to do some I/O-heavy operations on a new Thread, so that I do not bog down my GUI Thread. I have a function written, as a member of my Form, that does these I/O operations already, but running it on the GUI Thread really makes the application a pain to use. So my plan was to just run this function in a new Thread. So, I created a Thread variable, in my form, and am trying to get it to use that function as the ThreadStart parameter. It does not seem to like it, though.
I found an elegant looking solution, as a response to another thread, here.
///...blah blah updating files
string newText = "abc"; // running on worker thread
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate {
someLabel.Text = newText; // runs on UI thread
});
///...blah blah more updating files
From the looks of that response, I could run this function in a new Thread and then use an anonymous function to update my Form when the Thread has finished its calculations. I'm just not good enough to fill in the blanks from that response, though.
Everything I seem to read about Threads says that my ThreadStart function needs to be a static method in a new class. That response seems to suggest that I can do it within my Form class though, so that the this reference still references my Form instance. Otherwise, if my ThreadStart parameter were a different class, I'd have to pass in references to the Form instance, and that seems like more code, right?
Would anybody mind helping me fill in the context for that response? Thanks in advance!
There are a lot of ways you can do this. A very simple, straightforward one that's been around for a number of versions is to use the BackgroundWorker. It is designed for exactly this case. It has a DoWork method that runs in a background thread, and a Completed event that is fired after the work is done which runs in the UI thread (so you don't need to call invoke or anything to update the UI with the results). It even has support built in for reporting progress (the report progress event also runs in the UI thread) so you can easily update a progress bar or status text.
MSDN has some examples as well, and you can find lots more through some simple searches.
Another option, made available through C# 4.0, is to use Tasks. You can start a new task which will be run in a background thread, and then you can add a continuation which will be in the UI thread.
Here is a simple example:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => doStuffInBackground())
.ContinueWith(task => updateUI(), TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
}
private void updateUI()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
private void doStuffInBackground()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
You can of course do whatever you want in the actual lambdas that I have there, or you could even remove the lambdas and put methods in there directly as long as you ensure the signatures are correct. You could also continue chaining these continuations if you wanted, allowing you to, for example, to task 1, update a label, then do task 2, update a label, etc. The main disadvantage is that it's not good at updating a progress bar frequently inside of a loop, the way a BackgroundWorker can.
I'm a newbie to C# and multithreading so I apologise if this is a duplicate question but being a novice it appears my question is slightly different to others I have read.
My GUI runs in one (main) thread. It calls a background task (in a dll -- that I am writing too) that runs in a separate thread. The dll has NO knowledge of the GUI (i.e. it cannot reference the GUI class).
Now, say I want to update a progress bar on the GUI based on the status of the dll thread -> What I'm doing is creating an event in the dll that every X per cent will fire and the GUI will subscribe to this event. When the event is fired, the GUI will update the progress bar.
My questions:
Is the method of creating events the best way (bearing in mind the dll cannot reference the GUI)?
How do I ensure my above method is 'event safe'? Should I pass the progress percentage in the event to be thread safe or is there more to it?
Do I need to use Invoke when updating the GUI? I saw a post that suggested I did but I don't understand why since the updating of the bar is being done in the GUI thread??!
Hope you can clarify this for me!
Thanks
1.-I use that method all the time and yes it will work
2.-Just pass a int to the event handler and the variable will be safe to read. however when you are fireing the event from code do it like this
private void UpdatePercentage(int a)
{
var myEvent = PercentageUpdatedEvent
if(myEvent != null)
myEvent(this, new ProgressBarEventArgs(a));
}
The reason for this is so if the event is unsubcribed between the null check and the calling you won't get a exception.
3.-As everyone else has mentioned you will need to call Invoke as the event will be running on the dll's thread. However with controls it is legal to call a BeginInvoke without a EndEnvoike so the call will be non blocking on the dll's thread.
Here is the pattern I always use
private myClass_OnPercentageUpdatedEvent(object a, ProgressBarEventArgs e)
{
if(progressBar.InvokeRequired)
progressBar.BeginInvoke((Action<object,ProgressBarEventArgs>)myCless_OnPercentageUpdatedEvent, a, e);
else
{
progressBar.Value = e.Value;
}
}
Look into the BackgroundWorker class. It sounds like it fits your scenario pretty well.
This link on MSDN explains how to use it: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403%28VS.95%29.aspx
Keep in mind that under most circumstances, the events raised from your background task will also run on the background thread. No thread context switch happens automatically at all.
To understand why, you have to consider what an event is; just a certain type of Delegate object. You are setting a Delegate to that event from the main thread... but that delegate will actually be called within the background thread, in the code that triggers the event.
So yes; you would need to make sure you are moving things over to run on the GUI thread from within that event handler.
To answer (3) you will need to use Invoke. The event-handlers are going to be run from the background thread, not the GUI thread.
If you spin off a thread, you need to create a delegate, that can safely invoke your main thread with the appropriate parameters.
delegate void UpdateDelegate(int val)
void Update(int val)
{
if(this.InvokeRequired())
{
Invoke(new UpdateDeleage(Update),new object[] {val});
return;
}
this.MyProgressBar.Value = val;
}
Call Update from your separate thread as you would if calling it from your main thread. Once the thread determines that your main thread needs invoked to pass the value, it will invoke it with your delegate, with the parameters you passed. Otherwise, it will simply skip the block and set your values.
e.g.
...
new Thread(()=>IncrementValues()).Start();
...
void IncrementValues()
{
while(true)
Update(new Random(0,10));
}
I have on my blog a few different approaches to this problem, with the advantages/disadvantages of each. In summary, I recommend using the Task class.