We Keep Coding

Scoped service becomes singleton. How to debug? [duplicate]

I want to know can we declare the events as static if yes why and application of such declaration.
Sample please as seeing is believing

You can create static events. You use them the same way as a normal event, except that it's used in a static context within the class.
public class MyClass
{
public static event EventHandler MyEvent;
private static void RaiseEvent()
{
MyEvent?.Invoke(typeof(MyClass), EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
That being said, there are many issues with static events. You must take extra care to unsubscribe your objects from static events, since a subscription to a static event will root your subscribing instance, and prevent the garbage collector from ever collecting it.
Also, I've found that most cases where I'd want to make static events, I tend to learn towards using a standard event on a Singleton instead. This handles the same scenarios as a static event, but is (IMO) more obvious that you're subscribing to a "global" level instance.

Yes, you can. See, for example, Application.ApplicationExit. Note, however, the warnings on that page about memory leaks when attaching to static events; that applies to all static events.
There's nothing magical about when you use them: when you need to provide an event for a static class or an event that deals exclusively with static data and it makes sense to implement it this way.

Yes, you can declare an event as static. You use them the same way you would use them if they were instance events, but you access the event name in a static way (i.e. ClassName.EventName, rather than variableName.EventName).
Now... do you want static events? That's highly debatable. I personally would say no, since static anything creates difficulties in testing and should thus be avoided whenever possible.
But it's certainly possible.

public delegate void SomeEventDelegate();
public class SomeClass
{
public static event SomeEventDelegate SomeEvent;
}

How to prevent an event handler being called before a constructor's finished?

If I hook an event in a constructor, is there any possibility that the handler might be invoked by another thread before it's finished with the constructor?
e.g.:
private List<string> changes;
public MyClass(INotifyPropertyChanged observable) {
observable.PropertyChanged += this.Handler;
// Another thread changes a property at this point
this.changes = new List<string>();
}
private void Handler(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs e) {
this.changes.Add(e.PropertyName); // Breaks, because the list's not there yet
}
(Yes, I know it's trivial to avoid a problem in this example, I've got some more complex cases than this I'd like to make fully thread-safe)
I could probably just put a lock(obj) round both the event handler and the body of the constructor, but that feels clumsy and I suspect it's probably prone to deadlock somehow.
Is there a clean & reliable way of doing this?

ECMA-335 doesn't obligate a CLI to provide guarantee that the initialization changes which are made in a constructor should be visible before the constructor completion:
It is explicitly not a requirement that a conforming implementation of the CLI guarantee that all state updates performed within a constructor be uniformly visible before the constructor completes (see there, section I.12.6.8).
So the brief answer: avoid a subscription of an instance event handlers inside a constructor because it implies an exposure of the instance to external consumers with no guarantee that the instance is ready for consumption.
In details: typically semantic of a constructor implies only state initialization that is getting internal data of an instance into consistent state (when all its invariants are true and it's ready for consumption by other objects). The mechanism of events in C# in essence is adaptation of observer pattern which implies number of interactions between its participants and making of subscription is one of those interactions and as any other interaction with other object it should be avoided in a constructor when the instance isn't guaranteed to be initialized. You correctly noticed the possible scenario when it can become a problem but even with applying of protection mechanisms like reordering or synchronization, it cannot be guaranteed 100% safe, because it may not be provided by a CLI implementation or even if provided there is still possibility of scenarios when a constructor fails to complete for a reason not dependent on code inside the constructor, for example because of ThreadAbortException.
Of course there can be some relaxed requirements to design dictated by some well-known constraints (for example you can be 100% sure that your event publisher is implemented in the way which excludes critical scenarios) but in general case I'd suggest to make separation of construction and subscription scenarios when there is separate method, which is part of public contract and which is purposed only for making subscriptions.

How about using a thread-safe collection (like ConcurrentQueue) combined with the null conditional operator?
Thread-safe delegate invocation
Use the ?. operator to check if a delegate is non-null and invoke it in a thread-safe way (for example, when you raise an event).
class MyClass
{
private ConcurrentQueue<string> changes;
public MyClass(INotifyPropertyChanged observable)
{
observable.PropertyChanged += this.Handler;
// Another thread changes a property at this point
this.changes = new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
}
private void Handler(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
this.changes?.Enqueue(e.PropertyName);
// Nothing breaks, changes during construction are simply not recorded
}
}

rationale behind lock inside lock?

I am reviewing an example code in a book and came across the following code(simplified).
In the code, when Subscribe(T subscriber) is called, the thread enters into a lock section.
and then, when code inside the lock calls AddToSubscribers(T subscriber) method, the method has another lock. why is this second lock necessary?
public abstract class SubscriptionManager<T> where T : class
{
private static List<T> subscribers;
private static void AddToSubscribers(T subscriber)
{
lock (typeof(SubscriptionManager<T>))
{
if (subscribers.Contains(subscriber))
return;
subscribers.Add(subscriber);
}
}
public void Subscribe(T subscriber)
{
lock (typeof(SubscriptionManager<T>))
{
AddToSubscribers(subscriber);
}
}
}

In that context, it isn't; however, since locks are re-entrant that can be useful to ensure that any other caller of AddToSubscribers observes the lock. Actually, for that reason I'd say "remove it from Subscribe and just let AddToSubscribers do the locking".
However! A lock on a Type is pretty dangerous. A field would be safer:
// assuming static is correct
private static readonly object syncLock = new object();
and lock(syncLock). Depending on when subscribers is assigned, you might also get away with lock(subscribers) (and no extra field).
I should also note that having an instance method add to static state is pretty.... unusual; IMO Subscribe should be a static method, since it has nothing to do with the current instance.

In the code you posted, it isn't necessary. But then again, the code you posted is incomplete - for example the subscribers list is never initialized.
Locking on typeof(SubscriptionManager) is probably not a good idea either - locking on the subscribers field would be better - but would require the subscribers field to be initialized, e.g.
private static List<T> subscribers = new List<T>();

You probably should read near that sample and see what book talks about.
For that particular case - no, second lock is unnecessary.
Note: The sample is dangerous since it locks on public object (type). Normally one locks on special private object so external code is not able to mistakenly introduce deadlocks by mistakenly locking on the same object.

I also faced a situation once where I had to use nested Lock.
My case was, the function of the second lock maybe called from elsewhere, since it was a static function. However, for your case it won't be necessary since each data member belongs to an Instance and not static..

When to use callbacks instead of events in c#?

When would you favour using a callback (i.e, passing in a Func or Action), as opposed to exposing and using an event?
UPDATE
What motivated this question was the following problem:
I have a ThingsHandler class, which
can be associated with a ThingEditor.
The ThingsHandler handles a list of
Things, knows their order, which one is 'current', when new
ones are added or deleted etc.
The ThingEditors can just modify a single
thing.
The ThingsHandler needs to alert
the ThingEditor when the user selects
a new Thing to edit, and the
ThingEditor needs to alert the
ThingsHandler when the user says
'done'.
What bothers me is having these two classes holding references to each other - though I guess that's inevitable - or binding to events in both directions. I wondered if using a callback in one direction was 'cleaner'.
I suspect there is a design pattern for this.

Though the other answers thus far seem reasonable, I would take a more philosophical tack.
A class is a mechanism that models a particular kind of thing in a particular domain. It is very easy when writing the internal details of a class to conflate the implementation details of the mechanism with the semantics being modeled. A brief example of what I mean:
class Giraffe : Mammal, IDisposable
{
public override void Eat(Food f) { ... }
public void Dispose() { ... }
}
Notice how we've conflated the real-world thing being modeled (a giraffe is a kind of mammal, a giraffe eats food) with the details of the implementation (an instance of Giraffe is an object which can be disposed of with the "using" statement). I guarantee that if you go to the zoo, you will never see a giraffe being disposed of with the using statement. We've mixed up the levels here, which is unfortunate.
I try to use events (and properties) as part of the semantic model and use callback methods (and fields) as part of the mechanism. I would make GaveBirth an event of Giraffe, since that is part of the model of real-world giraffe behaviour we're attempting to capture. If I had some mechanism, like, say I wanted to implement an inorder-walk tree traversal algorithm that walked the family tree of giraffes and called a method back on every one, then I'd say that this was clearly a mechanism and not part of the model, and make it a callback rather than try to shoehorn that into the event model.

I use callbacks in a few cases where I know it will only ever fire once, and the callback is specific to a single method call (rather than to an object instance) - for example, as the return part of an async method.
This is particularly true of static utility methods (since you don't have an instance, and static events are deadly when used carelessly, and to be avoided), but of course the other option is to create a class instance with an event instead.

Generally, I use a callback if it is required, whereas an event is used when it should be optional.
Don't expose an event if you're expecting there to always be something listening.
Consider the following:
public class MyClass_Event
{
public event EventHandler MakeMeDoWork;
public void DoWork()
{
if (MakeMeDoWork == null)
throw new Exception("Set the event MakeMeDoWork before calling this method.");
MakeMeDoWork(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
versus:
public class MyClass_Callback
{
public void DoWork(EventHandler callback)
{
if (callback == null)
throw new ArgumentException("Set the callback.", "callback"); // better design
callback(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
The code is almost the same as the callback can be passed as null, but at least the exception thrown can be more relevant.

Callbacks are good when one object wishes to receive a single notification (e.g. an Async data read runs and then calls you with the result).
Events are good for recurring notifications that can be received by an arbitrary number of listeners.

One example is when the callback should return something. E.g. (stupid example):
public int Sum(Func<int> callbackA, Func<int> callbackB) {
return callbackA() + callbackB();
}
public void UseSum() {
return sum(() => 10, () => 20);
}

In terms of OO design and class coupling there isn't great deal of difference between a callback interface and an event.
However, I prefer events where they are things the class needs to "shout about" to whoever is interested in listening (usually multiple things) and callbacks where a specific class has requested an async operation.
Whatever you use, use them consistently across the codebase!

I would use Func or Action when I am going to call the function once or use a Lambda expression.
Events can be registered more than once which sometimes is ideal. With a callback, one has to implement a registration system for the callbacks if you want multiple.

Well, I think they are same things. There're many different tech terms to name the same concepts or things in the different languages.
So, what do you mean "Callback" or "event handler"?
According to MSDN: Callback function is code within a managed application that helps an unmanaged DLL function complete a task.
And, MADN also gives us a introduction of the difference between them.click here
Callbacks are extensibility points that allow a framework to call back into user code through a delegate. These delegates are usually passed to the framework through a parameter of a method.
Events are a special case of callbacks that supports convenient and consistent syntax for supplying the delegate (an event handler). In addition, Visual Studio’s statement completion and designers provide help in using event-based APIs
Also, in some books, such as this book, the author seemed say the same thing with MSDN.
Therefore, in my opinion, you can't say use callbacks instead of events in the C#.

C#: events or an observer interface? Pros/cons?

I've got the following (simplified):
interface IFindFilesObserver
{
void OnFoundFile(FileInfo fileInfo);
void OnFoundDirectory(DirectoryInfo directoryInfo);
}
class FindFiles
{
IFindFilesObserver _observer;
// ...
}
...and I'm conflicted. This is basically what I would have written in C++, but C# has events. Should I change the code to use events, or should I leave it alone?
What are the advantages or disadvantages of events over a traditional observer interface?

Consider an event to be a callback interface where the interface has only one method.
Only hook events you need
With events, you only need to implement handlers for events you're interested in handling. In the observer interface pattern, you'd have to implement all methods in the entire interface including implementing method bodies for notification types you don't actually care about handling. In your example, you always have to implement OnFoundDirectory and OnFoundFile, even if you only care about one of these events.
Less maintenance
Another good thing about events is you can add a new one to a particular class so that it will raise it, and you don't have to change every existing observer. Whereas if you want to add a new method to an interface, you have to go around every class that already implements that interface and implement the new method in all of them. With an event though, you only need to alter existing classes that actually want to do something in response to the new event you're adding.
The pattern is built into the language so everybody knows how to use it
Events are idiomatic, in that when you see an event, you know how to use it. With an observer interface, people often implement different ways of registering to receive notifications and hook up the observer.. with events though, once you've learnt how to register and use one (with the += operator), the rest are all the same.
Pros for interfaces
I haven't got many pros for interfaces. I guess they force someone to implement all methods in the interface. But, you can't really force somebody to implement all those methods correctly, so I don't think there's a lot of value on this.
Syntax
Some people don't like the way you have to declare a delegate type for each event. Also, standard event handlers in the .NET framework have these parameters: (object sender, EventArgs args). As sender doesn't specify a particular type, you have to down-cast if you want to use it. This often is fine in practice, it feels not quite right though because you're losing the protection of the static type system. But, if you implement your own events and don't follow the .NET framework convention on this, you can use the correct type so potential down-casting isn't required.

Hmm, events can be used to implement the Observer pattern. In fact, using events can be regarded as another implementation of the observer-pattern imho.

Events are harder to propagate through chain of objects, for example if you use FACADE pattern or delegate work to other class.
You need to be very careful with unsubscribing from events to allow object to be garbage collected.
Events are 2x time slower than simple function call, 3x slower if you do null check on every raise, and copy event delegate before null check and invocation to make it thread safe.
Also read MSDN about new (in 4.0) IObserver<T> interface.
Consider this example:
using System;
namespace Example
{
//Observer
public class SomeFacade
{
public void DoSomeWork(IObserver notificationObject)
{
Worker worker = new Worker(notificationObject);
worker.DoWork();
}
}
public class Worker
{
private readonly IObserver _notificationObject;
public Worker(IObserver notificationObject)
{
_notificationObject = notificationObject;
}
public void DoWork()
{
//...
_notificationObject.Progress(100);
_notificationObject.Done();
}
}
public interface IObserver
{
void Done();
void Progress(int amount);
}
//Events
public class SomeFacadeWithEvents
{
public event Action Done;
public event Action<int> Progress;
private void RaiseDone()
{
if (Done != null) Done();
}
private void RaiseProgress(int amount)
{
if (Progress != null) Progress(amount);
}
public void DoSomeWork()
{
WorkerWithEvents worker = new WorkerWithEvents();
worker.Done += RaiseDone;
worker.Progress += RaiseProgress;
worker.DoWork();
//Also we neede to unsubscribe...
worker.Done -= RaiseDone;
worker.Progress -= RaiseProgress;
}
}
public class WorkerWithEvents
{
public event Action Done;
public event Action<int> Progress;
public void DoWork()
{
//...
Progress(100);
Done();
}
}
}

Pros of an interface-solution:
If you add methods, existing observers needs to implement those methods. This means that you have less of a chance of forgetting to wire up existing observers to new functionality. You can of course implement them as empty methods which means you have the luxury of still doing nothing in response to certain "events". But you won't so easily forget.
If you use explicit implementation, you'll also get compiler errors the other way, if you remove or change existing interfaces, then observers implementing them will stop compiling.
Cons:
More thought has to go into planning, since a change in the observer interface might enforce changes all over your solution, which might require different planning. Since a simple event is optional, little or no other code has to change unless that other code should react to the event.

Some further benefits of events.
You get proper multicast behaviour for free.
If you change the subscribers of an event in response to that event the behaviour is well defined
They can be introspected (reflected) easily and consistently
Tool chain support for events (simply because they are the idiom in .net)
You get the option to use the asynchronous apis it provides
You can achieve all of these (except the tool chain) yourself but it's surprisingly hard. For example:
If you use a member variable like a List<> to store the list of observers.
If you use foreach to iterate over it then any attempt to add or remove a subscriber within one of the OnFoo() method callbacks will trigger an exception unless you write further code to deal with it cleanly.

The best way to decide is this: which one suits the situation better. That might sound like a silly or unhelpful answer, but I don't think you should regard one or the other as the "proper" solution.
We can throw a hundred tips at you. Events are best when the observer is expected to listen for arbitrary events. An interface is best when the observer is expected to listed to all of a given set of events. Events are best when dealing with GUI apps. Interfaces consume less memory (a single pointer for multiple events). Yadda yadda yadda. A bulleted list of pros and cons is something to think about, but not a definitive answer. What you really need to do is try both of them in actual applications and get a good feel for them. Then you can choose the one that suits the situation better. Learn form doing.
If you have to use a single defining question, then ask yourself which better describes your situation: A set of loosely related events any of which may be used or ignored, or a set of closely related events which will all generally need to be handled by one observer. But then, I'm just describing the event model and interface model, so I'm back at square one: which one suits the situation better?

Pros are that events are more 'dot-netty'. If you are designing non-visual components that can be dropped onto a form, you can hook them up using the designer.
Cons are that an event only signifies a single event - you need a separate event for each 'thing' that you want to notify the observer about. This doesn't really have much practical impact except that each observed object would need to hold a reference for every observer for every event, bloating memory in the case where there are lots of observed objects (one of the reasons they made a different way of managing the observer/observable relationship in WPF).
In your case I'd argue it doesn't make much difference. If the observer would typically be interested in all those events, use an observer interface rather than separate events.

I prefer an event base solution for the following reasons
It reduces the cost of entry. It's much easier to say "+= new EventHandler" than to implement a full fledged interface.
It reduces maintenance costs. If you add a new event into your class that's all that needs to be done. If you add a new event to an interface you must update every single consumer in your code base. Or define an entirely new interface which over time gets annoying to consumers "Do I implement IRandomEvent2 or IRandomEvent5?"
Events allow for handlers to be non-class based (ie a static method somewhere). There is no functional reason to force all event handlers to be an instance member
Grouping a bunch of events into an interface is making an assumption about how the events are used (and it's just that, an assumption)
Interfaces offer no real advantage over a raw event.

Java has language support for anonymous interfaces, so callback interfaces are the thing to use in Java.
C# has support for anonymous delegates - lambdas - and so events are the thing to use in C#.

A benefit of interfaces is that they are easier to apply decorators to. The standard example:
subject.RegisterObserver(new LoggingObserver(myRealObserver));
compared to:
subject.AnEvent += (sender, args) => { LogTheEvent(); realEventHandler(sender, args); };
(I'm a big fan of the decorator pattern).

If your objects will need to be serialized in some way that retains references such as with NetDataContractSerializer or perhaps protobuf events will not be able to cross the serialization boundary. Since observer pattern relies on nothing more than just object references, it can work with this type of serialization with no problem if that is what is desired.
Ex. You have a bunch of business objects that link to each other bidirectionally that you need to pass to a web service.