Is there a way to invoke a method on a background thread ?
I am aware of BackgroundWorker/Creating a thread or use ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem etc but that's not the answer i am looking for
for e.g. the SCSF has attributes to ensure the method is invoked on a background or a UI thread
I'd like to do something similar for a small app and am looking for a working example
I think the BackgroundWorker will fit your needs. It allows you to run an operation in the background in a Winform app. Those articles have working examples. :)
There are many ways to invoke a method on a background thread.
Do you want to block while the method is running? Do you want a result returned from the method? Do you want this result displayed in the UI? Is the method called only once? Many times, as needed? Many times in a loop? Asynchronously? Should the background thread continue if your app quits? The answer to these questions will tell you which method you should use.
You can get an overview of the various thread message passing methods from a great article at The Code Project.
Thread pool already uses background threads. However, you don't have any control over those threads. If you want control, then you need to use System.Threading.Thread. This gives you more control over how a thread is created (background, foreground, etc) and managed (suspend, resume, sleep, etc).
Related
I'm building a WPF application. I'm doing some async communication with the server side, and I use event aggregation with Prism on the client. Both these things results in new threads to be spawned which are not the UI thread. If I attempt to do "WPF operations" on these callback and event handler threads the world will fall apart, which it now has started doing.
First I met problems trying to create some WPF objects in the callback from server. I was told that the thread needed to run in STA mode. Now I'm trying to update some UI data in a Prism event handler, and I'm told that:
The caller cannot access this thread because a different thread owns it.
So; what's the key to getting things right in WPF? I've read up on the WPF Dispatcher in this MSDN post. I'm starting to get it, but I'm no wizard yet.
Is the key to always use Dispatcher.Invoke when I need to run something which I'm not sure will be called on the UI thread?
Does it matter if it actually was called on the UI thread, and I do Dispatcher.Invoke anyway?
Dispatcher.Invoke = synchronously. Dispathcher.BeginInvoke = async?
Will Dispatcher.Invoke request the UI thread, and then stop to wait for it? Is it bad practice and risk of less responsive programs?
How do I get the dispatcher anyway? Will Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher always give me the dispatcher representing the UI thread?
Will there exist more than one Dispatcher, or is "Dispatcher" basically the same as the UI thread for the application?
And what's the deal with the BackgroundWorker? When do I use this instead? I assume this is always async?
Will everything that runs on the UI thread (by being Invoked) be run in STA apartment mode? I.e. if I have something that requires to be run in STA mode - will Dispatcher.Invoke be sufficient?
Anyone wanna clearify things for me? Any related recommendations, etc? Thanks!
Going over each of your questions, one by one:
Not quite; you should only invoke onto the UI thread when necessary. See #2.
Yes, it does matter. You should not just automatically Invoke everything. The key is to only invoke onto the UI thread if necessary. To do this, you can use the Dispatcher.CheckAccess method.
That is correct.
Also correct, and yes, you do run the risk of less responsive programs. Most of the time, you are not going to be looking at a severe performance hit (we're talking about milliseconds for a context switch), but you should only Invoke if necessary. That being said, at some points it is unavoidable, so no, I would not say it is bad practice at all. It is just one solution to a problem that you will encounter every now and then.
In every case I have seen, I have made due with Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher. For complex scenarios, this may not be sufficient, but I (personally) have not seen them.
Not entirely correct, but this line of thinking will not do any harm. Let me put it this way: the Dispatcher can be used to gain access to the UI thread for the application. But it is not in and of itself the UI thread.
BackgroundWorker is generally used when you have a time-consuming operation and want to maintain a responsive UI while running that operation in the background. Normally you do not use BackgroundWorker instead of Invoke, rather, you use BackgroundWorker in conjunction with Invoke. That is, if you need to update some UI object in your BackgroundWorker, you can Invoke onto the UI thread, perform the update, and then return to the original operation.
Yes. The UI thread of a WPF application, by definition, must be running in a single-threaded apartment.
There's a lot to be said about BackgroundWorker, I'm sure many questions are already devoted to it, so I won't go into too much depth. If you're curious, check out the MSDN page for BackgroundWorker class.
I am creating winform to process (convert txt files to tiff) large amount of files. I put all the code behind a button (btnProcess). Is this a good idea? It works but I noticed when I go away from the winform and come back to this I see blank window until the process is complete. I heard about background worker. what is the purpose of background worker?
What you need here is multi-threading. That means that two (or more) threads of code would run in parallel. One of them would be the UI thread, the one responsible for drawing the window. In your case you are running your code in the UI thread and thus blocking the UI rendering while your code is running.
The purpose of the BackgroundWorker is to start an operation on a new thread and is what you need.
BackgroundWorker class
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.
The page I linked above contains a complete BackgroundWorker example.
It depends on your application. If this is a single purpose application that is not extremely long and the only problem is the screen doesn't paint. Which is what it sounds like to me, just throw an Application.DoEvents into the loop and be done with it.
I am a beginner with WPF, in my application I need to perform a series of Initialization steps, these take 10-15 seconds to complete during which my UI becomes unresponsive.
I was using yesterday the background worker but it didn't update my window, in fact it was frozen. Not sure, but maybe it didn't work because this control is only for Windows Forms.
UPDATE:
If not too much trouble, can you post me an example to use the alternative? For my case, the program will get some values from a database in a blucle.
Dispatcher.
The Dispatcher maintains a prioritized queue of work items for a specific thread. This might help you for updating your UI. If you have a lot of UI related initializations even this won't be able to help you much.
Dispatcher is not always an alternative to BackgroundWorker actually. The best practice is to select the more appropriate one as per your requirement. For example if you want something to execute without queuing BackgroundWorker is the solution. On the other hand if queuing is not a problem then Dispatcher is an alternative. For example, Dispatcher is using in Spell checkers and syntax highlighting functionality.
WPF Thread Model
All WPF applications start out with two important threads, one for
rendering and one for managing the user interface. The rendering
thread is a hidden thread that runs in the background, so the only
thread that you ordinarily deal with is the UI thread. WPF requires
that most of its objects be tied to the UI thread. This is known as
thread affinity, meaning you can only use a WPF object on the thread
on which it was created. Using it on other threads will cause a
runtime exception to be thrown. Note that the WPF threading model
interoperates well with Win32®-based APIs. This means that WPF can
host or be hosted by any HWND-based API (Windows Forms, Visual Basic®,
MFC, or even Win32).
The thread affinity is handled by the Dispatcher
class, a prioritized message loop for WPF applications. Typically your
WPF projects have a single Dispatcher object (and therefore a single
UI thread) that all user interface work is channeled through.
NOTE :
The main difference between the Dispatcher and other threading methods
is that the Dispatcher is not actually multi-threaded. The Dispatcher
governs the controls, which need a single thread to function properly;
the BeginInvoke method of the Dispatcher queues events for later
execution (depending on priority etc.), but still on the same thread.
See this thread for more information.
You could also queue items up with the thread pool and run the tasks like that, but be careful, if your tasks need to update the UI when they are finished you will have to marshal the data back to the UI thread.
One could use asynchronous delegates.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228963.aspx
Just make sure if you are doing any UI related updates use:
Dispatcher.CheckAccess()
Here a simple example:
private void HandleUIButtons()
{
if (!btnSplit.Dispatcher.CheckAccess())
{
//if here - we are on a different non-UI thread
btnSplit.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(HandleUIButtons));
}
else
{
btnSplit.IsEnabled = true; //this is ultimately run on the UI-thread
}
}
Taken from here:
http://blog.clauskonrad.net/2009/03/wpf-invokerequired-dispatchercheckacces.html
Sometimes I saw that when I call a method from my form to do something that my UI freezes. How to solve this problem? If I call that method in separate thread then problem will be solved?
If I call method in separate thread like the code below
new System.Threading.Thread(delegate()
{
HeavyMethod();
}).Start();
does this solve my problem or is there any better solution?
Call the method on a Background Worker would be the best solution.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Doing that you can control when things get updated (using the Report Progress Feature) and allow you to cancel the work.
Also, make sure that whatever resources you manipulate in the backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync(); are properly shared. You can get into what is called "Race Conditions" which causes your output to be non-determanistic (e.g. you won't get the same results every time you run the method)
For a good walk through on Multithreading and shared resources, see this link:
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/uploadfile/mgold/multithreadingintro10062005000439am/multithreadingintro.aspx?articleid=920ecafc-e83b-4a9c-a64d-0b39ad885705
If you are calling your method in response to an event, then by default the method will be running on the GUI thread (the thread that the runtime uses to handle all user events). If that method is huge and/or heavy, then it will "freeze" the UI as you describe.
Making it run on a separate thread is a viable solution for many of these cases.
There are cases, however, when you'll actually want the UI to "block" (for example, if you are updating a lot of controls, you don't want the user to mess with them in the meanwhile). For such cases, the sanest approach is to pop up a modal "wait" dialog.
Since it is C# 2.0, I suppose it is WinForms. Don't hold up the UI thread with CPU-bound code.
You can spawn a new thread to run your CPU-bound code, but you have to be careful not to access WinForms controls, especially not to update control properties. Many WinForms controls can only be accessed/updated from the UI thread. Check the InvokeRequired field to see if you need to marshal (i.e. use Invoke) the call from another thread back to the UI thread.
Also consider using the ThreadPool instead of creating a new thread.
That is correct, If you move the heavy processing off of the UI Thread then it should free up the UI to redraw. For what you want to do your implementation should work just fine. Although ThreadPooling or BackgroundWorker would be the suggested implementations (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.threadpool(v=VS.80).aspx), (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx).
I currently have a thread that listens for data from the network and then runs rules on it. I then want to pass the data to the GUI. I am worried about having a deadlock in the GUI. I cant figure out were to put the mutexes on the GUI side. I am also using c# and dotnet 3.5.
What I have come up with is
1) Using a timer to create an event and dump the thread. Worried about performance.
2) Use an intermediary event to copy the data to GUI.
3) Dig in and figure out thread safe way of using GUI.
What do you think is best way to proceed?
Edit: Here is the solution I am using. I pass in the changed element and then protect the big object with a mutex. I use helper function to switch threads using InvokeRequired then BeginInvoke with a delegate. Pulled from reading the answers and then following links until reaching Threading in Windows Forms by Jon Skeet.
delegate void UInt32ParameterDelegate(UInt32 n);
public void UpdateLocation(UInt32 n)
{
if (InvokeRequired)
{
// We're not in the UI thread, so we need to call BeginInvoke
BeginInvoke(new UInt32ParameterDelegate(UpdateLocation), new object[] { n });
return;
}
// Must be on the UI thread if we've got this far
this.engine.location.UpdateBusy.WaitOne();
// do the work in here
this.engine.location.UpdateBusy.ReleaseMutex();
}
Synchronization is very easy in Windows Forms. You can call Control.Invoke() in the background thread. The thread will stall until the delegate has finished running on the UI thread. No sync required at all.
If stalling the thread is a problem, use Control.BeginInvoke(). You'll have to protect the object(s) you pass to the delegate with a lock if the thread might alter them while it continues running. That's rarely the case in a producer-consumer scenario, the thread can simply create new objects.
Do make sure that you don't Invoke() too often. Do it more frequently than about 1000 times per second and the UI thread will stop pumping Windows messages, being bogged down by handling the invoke requests. Since it is human eyes you're trying to please, invoking more than about 25 times per second is just wasted effort. Pool intermediate results in a collection object.
I hope I understand your problem correctly.
After the background thread reads the data and does whatever it wants, it should use Invoke to call a method on the GUI thread. That method would update anything that should be updated in the GUI.
Never read from the network on the GUI thread. It's only a matter of time before your application runs during a network outage and your GUI hangs as a result. This will really frustrate your users.
In your situation I think the best approach is to have a background thread complete the read operation. Then take the resulting data and move it back to the GUI thread via a SynchronizationContext Post or Send method.
you should just pass an event from your network thread to your UI thread.
then cross threads using begininvoke so you don't get a cross thread exception.
Need help getting info across a UI thread and another thread in C#
You could use a backgroundworker that will process the datareading in a background thread and when it's done you can end the backgroundworker triggering it's RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler. In the RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler you can update your GUI thread with the result.
Isn't easier to just throw a delegate who raise an event that inform the form to refresh itself?