We Keep Coding

Idle event not executing after registration and show?

I have an application where I would like to execute certain orders on a certain thread when that thread is idling. So I created a manager to handle this for me, launched of a form.show and created a thread manager:
public class ThreadManager
{
static List<ThreadAble> orders = new List<ThreadAble>();
public static bool running = false;
public static void execute(ThreadAble action)
{
orders.Add(action);
}
public static void RegisterAPIThreadAndHold()
{
running = true;
Application.Idle += Application_Idle;
}
private static void Application_Idle(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (orders.Count != 0)
{
ThreadAble f = orders.First();
orders.Remove(f);
f.execute();
}
}
}
public interface ThreadAble {
void execute();
}
public static class formstuff{
private static void ShowDialogThreaded(){
form.Show(owner);
ThreadManager.RegisterAPIThreadAndHold();
}
}
}
I then try to use this using it by:
public class TestRegister : ThreadAble
{
public void execute()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
ThreadManager.execute(new TestRegister());
Now this should throw an exception, however it doesn't. I have also tried with more complicated behaviour and breakpoints but this code seems to never get executed. Am I misunderstanding how the Application_Idle works? Is there another way to make it so that this thread starts executing my code (has to be this thread) when it's done with handling the GUI code and not doing anything else (it might be required to do other things a well).
I already veritfied that RegisterAPIThreadAndHold() is executed.

A single thread to which you can subscribe methods, to be executed in an unordered fashion

I need the following logic implemented:
a thread to which you can subscribe/unsubscribe methods at runtime.
It's fine for all these methods to have an header such as (Object sender, EventArgs e) and to return void.
These methods scope must be the scope of the class where they are defined lexically.
There's no guarantee about the order of execution
I've come up with the following implementation, which seems to do exactly what I need: basically I start an internal thread which triggers an event each x milliseconds. You can subscribe/unsubscribe delegates to this event through appropriate methods.
Before sticking to it I'd like to know if there may be subtle issues following this approach.
public class Orchestrator
{
private Thread _mainThread;
private event MethodDelegate _mainEvent;
public delegate void MethodDelegate (Object sender, EventArgs e);
private bool _stop = false;
private short _ms = 100;
public short PollingInterval { get { return _ms; }
set
{
_ms = value;
}
}
public Orchestrator()
{
_mainThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(_execute));
}
public void Start()
{
_stop = false;
_mainThread.Start();
}
public void Stop()
{
_stop = true;
}
public void Clear()
{
_mainEvent = null;
}
public void Push(MethodDelegate method)
{
_mainEvent += method;
}
public void Pop(MethodDelegate method)
{
_mainEvent -= method;
}
private void _execute()
{
while(!_stop)
{
if (_mainEvent != null)
try
{
_mainEvent(this, new EventArgs());
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(_ms);
}
}
}

That's basically fine. You need to make _stop volatile. In C# the event accessor methods are thread-safe so that works fine.
The exception handling is very questionable. Do you really want to spam errors to the console? Define an event OnError and report errors to the consumer of your class.
You could use a timer or await Task.Delay to save a thread. This would make sense if there are a lot of such class instances at the same time. If there is just one this is likely not worth the effort.

You have a race condition which could cause a NullReferenceException, in:
while(!_stop)
{
if (_mainEvent != null)
try
{
_mainEvent(this, new EventArgs());
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(_ms);
}
Some other thread could unsubscribe from the event or call Clear() inbetween if (_mainEvent != null) and the call of _mainEvent.
To avoid this, you should copy _mainEvent into a local variable and check that against null, and use that instead:
var mainEvent = _mainEvent;
if (mainEvent != null)
try
{
mainEvent(this, new EventArgs());
In any case, I think you should be using a Timer for this rather than rolling-your-own.

How to make a slightly modified AutoResetEvent class?

I need a synchronizing class that behaves exactly like the AutoResetEvent class, but with one minor exception:
A call to the Set() method must release all waiting threads, and not just one.
How can I construct such a class? I am simply out of ideas?
Martin.

So you have multiple threads doing a .WaitOne() and you want to release them?
Use the ManualResetEvent class and all the waiting threads should release...

Thank you very much for all your thougts and inputs which I have read with great interest. I did some more searching here on Stackoverflow, and suddenly I found this, whcih turned out to be just what I was looking for. By cutting it down to just the two methods I need, I ended up with this small class:
public sealed class Signaller
{
public void PulseAll()
{
lock (_lock)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(_lock);
}
}
public bool Wait(TimeSpan maxWaitTime)
{
lock (_lock)
{
return Monitor.Wait(_lock, maxWaitTime);
}
}
private readonly object _lock = new object();
}
and it does excactly what it should! I'm amazed that a solution could be that simple, and I love such simplicity. I'ts beautiful. Thank you, Matthew Watson!
Martin.

Two things you might try.
Using a Barrier object add conditionally adding threads too it and signaling them.
The other might be to use a publisher subscriber setup like in RX. Each thread waits on an object that it passes to a collection. When you want to call 'set' loop over a snapshot of it calling set on each member.
Or you could try bears.

If the event is being referenced by all threads in a common field or property, you could replace the common field or property with a new non-signaled event and then signal the old one. It has some cost to it since you'll be regularly creating new synchronization objects, but it would work. Here's an example of how I would do that:
public static class Example
{
private static volatile bool stopRunning;
private static ReleasingAutoResetEvent myEvent;
public static void RunExample()
{
using (Example.myEvent = new ReleasingAutoResetEvent())
{
WaitCallback work = new WaitCallback(WaitThread);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(work, i.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(500);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
Example.myEvent.Set();
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Example.stopRunning = true;
Example.myEvent.Set();
}
}
private static void WaitThread(object state)
{
while (!Example.stopRunning)
{
Example.myEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} is released!", state);
}
}
}
public sealed class ReleasingAutoResetEvent : IDisposable
{
private volatile ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void Set()
{
ManualResetEvent eventToSet = this.manualResetEvent;
this.manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
eventToSet.Set();
eventToSet.Dispose();
}
public bool WaitOne()
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne();
}
public bool WaitOne(int millisecondsTimeout)
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne(millisecondsTimeout);
}
public bool WaitOne(TimeSpan timeout)
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne(timeout);
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.manualResetEvent.Dispose();
}
}

Another more lightweight solution you could try that uses the Monitor class to lock and unlock objects is below. However, I'm not as happy with the cleanup story for this version of ReleasingAutoResetEvent since Monitor may hold a reference to it and keep it alive indefinitely if it is not properly disposed.
There are a few limitations/gotchas with this implementation. First, the thread that creates this object will be the only one that will be able to signal it with a call to Set; other threads that attempt to do the same thing will receive a SynchronizationLockException. Second, the thread that created it will never be able to wait on it successfully since it already owns the lock. This will only be an effective solution if you have exactly one controlling thread and several other waiting threads.
public static class Example
{
private static volatile bool stopRunning;
private static ReleasingAutoResetEvent myEvent;
public static void RunExample()
{
using (Example.myEvent = new ReleasingAutoResetEvent())
{
WaitCallback work = new WaitCallback(WaitThread);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(work, i.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(500);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
Example.myEvent.Set();
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Example.stopRunning = true;
Example.myEvent.Set();
}
}
private static void WaitThread(object state)
{
while (!Example.stopRunning)
{
Example.myEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} is released!", state);
}
}
}
public sealed class ReleasingAutoResetEvent : IDisposable
{
private volatile object lockObject = new object();
public ReleasingAutoResetEvent()
{
Monitor.Enter(this.lockObject);
}
public void Set()
{
object objectToSignal = this.lockObject;
object objectToLock = new object();
Monitor.Enter(objectToLock);
this.lockObject = objectToLock;
Monitor.Exit(objectToSignal);
}
public void WaitOne()
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
Monitor.Enter(objectToMonitor);
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
public bool WaitOne(int millisecondsTimeout)
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
bool succeeded = Monitor.TryEnter(objectToMonitor, millisecondsTimeout);
if (succeeded)
{
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
return succeeded;
}
public bool WaitOne(TimeSpan timeout)
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
bool succeeded = Monitor.TryEnter(objectToMonitor, timeout);
if (succeeded)
{
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
return succeeded;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Monitor.Exit(this.lockObject);
}
}

Joining a thread started with StartNew()

When using the StartNew() method to kick off a process on a new thread, I need to figure out how to make another call into this object in that same thread (I assume this would be some sort of Join operation?).
The following example is dumbed down to illustrate the meat of what I am trying to do. I am well aware it is severely lacking in basic concurrency considerations. But I didn't want to cloud the code with all of that logic, so please forgive me on that.
The following console app shows what I am trying to accomplish. Assume on the StartNew() call a new thread with ID 9976 is created and the method invoked there. I would like the subsequent call to ProcessImmediate() in the file system watcher change event handler to be made on thread 9976 as well. As it stands, the call would share the same thread that is used for the file system watcher change event.
Can this be done, and if so, how?
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var runner = new Runner();
runner.Run();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class Runner
{
private Activity _activity = null;
private FileSystemWatcher _fileSystemWatcher;
public void Run()
{
_activity = new Activity();
// start activity on a new thread
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _activity.Go());
_fileSystemWatcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
_fileSystemWatcher.Filter = "*.watcher";
_fileSystemWatcher.Path = "c:\temp";
_fileSystemWatcher.Changed += FileSystemWatcher_Changed;
_fileSystemWatcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
private void FileSystemWatcher_Changed(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
// WANT TO CALL THIS FOR ACTIVITY RUNNING ON PREVIOUSLY CALLED THREAD
_activity.ProcessImmediate();
}
}
public class Activity
{
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
// for purposes of this example, assume that Go is magically in its sleep state when ProcessImmediate is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
}
}
* UPDATE *
Thanks for the excellent responses. I took Mike's suggestion and implemented it for my console app. Below is the full working code which also includes the use of a cancellation token. I post this in case someone else might find it useful.
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var runner = new Runner();
runner.Run();
Console.ReadKey();
runner.Stop();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class Runner
{
private Activity _activity = null;
private FileSystemWatcher _fileSystemWatcher;
private CancellationTokenSource _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
public void Stop() { _cts.Cancel(); }
public void Run()
{
_activity = new Activity();
// start activity on a new thread
var task = new Task(() => _activity.Go(_cts.Token), _cts.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
task.Start();
_fileSystemWatcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
_fileSystemWatcher.Filter = "*.watcher";
_fileSystemWatcher.Path = "C:\\Temp\\FileSystemWatcherPath";
_fileSystemWatcher.Changed += FileSystemWatcher_Changed;
_fileSystemWatcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
private void FileSystemWatcher_Changed(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
// WANT TO CALL THIS FOR ACTIVITY RUNNING ON PREVIOUSLY CALLED THREAD
_activity.ProcessImmediate();
}
}
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void Go(CancellationToken ct)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Name = "Go";
while (!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(5000);
}
Console.WriteLine("Exiting");
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting()
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Doing Something Interesting on thread {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId));
}
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
// for purposes of this example, assume that Go is magically in its sleep state when ProcessImmediate is called
_processing.Set();
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}
}

First, you should use TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning if you are creating a task that will not complete quickly. Second, use an AutoResetEvent to signal the waiting thread to wake up. Note that below ProcessImmediate will return before DoSomethingInteresting has completed running on the other thread. Example:
using System.Threading;
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(2000);
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
_processing.Set();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}

User mike has given a better solution, which will be appropriate when you like to call the same method immediately. If you want to call a different methods immediately I'll expand mike's answer to achieve that.
using System.Threading;
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private ConcurrentQueue<Action> actionsToProcess = new ConcurrentQueue<Action>();
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(2000);
while(!actionsToProcess.IsEmpty)
{
Action action;
if(actionsToProcess.TryDeque(out action))
action();
}
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate(Action action)
{
actionsToProcess.Enqueue(action);
_processing.Set();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}

To execute different methods on the same thread you can use a message loop that dispatches incoming requests. A simple option would be to use the event loop scheduler of the Reactive Extensions and to "recursively" schedule your Go() function - if in the mean time a different operation is scheduled it would be processed before the next Go() operation.
Here is a sample:
class Loop
: IDisposable
{
IScheduler scheduler = new EventLoopScheduler();
MultipleAssignmentDisposable stopper = new MultipleAssignmentDisposable();
public Loop()
{
Next();
}
void Next()
{
if (!stopper.IsDisposed)
stopper.Disposable = scheduler.Schedule(Handler);
}
void Handler()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Handler: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
Next();
}
public void Notify()
{
scheduler.Schedule(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Notify: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
});
}
public void Dispose()
{
stopper.Dispose();
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var l = new Loop())
{
Console.WriteLine("Press 'q' to quit.");
while (Console.ReadKey().Key != ConsoleKey.Q)
l.Notify();
}
}

Return feedback from an event which is being waited on

In it's simplicity what I am trying to do is handle "Doing Something" by firing off a process on a seperate thread to do what I need to do and waiting for an event to be raised to say "I have finished doing what I need to do". In the EventArgs though I will have a property for any errors which may be encountered during the process. Here is a simplified example of my situation.
public class MessageHandler
{
private AutoResetEvent MessageHasSent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void SendMessage()
{
MessageSender ms = new MessageSender();
ms.MessageSent += new EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs>(MessageHandler_MessageSent);
Thread t = new Thread(ms.Send());
t.Start();
MessageHasSent.WaitOne();
//Do some check here
//Same again but for "Message recieved"
}
void MessageHandler_MessageSent(object sender, MessageSentEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Errors.Count != 0)
{
//What can I do here to return to the next step after waitone?
}
else
MessageHasSent.Set();
}
}
public class MessageSender
{
public event EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs> MessageSent;
public void Send()
{
//Do some method which could potentiallialy return a List<Error>
MessageSent(this, new MessageSentEventArgs() { Errors = new List<Error>() });
}
}
public class Error { }
public class MessageSentEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public List<Error> Errors;
}
Essentially once the event has been raised from Send the code will continute, however I want some way of the event giving feedback, potentially using the MessageHasSent. I have tried different methods, I thought if I called Close instead of Set it would perhaps allow me to access something such as IsClosed. You could throw an exception or set a flag outside of the scope of the event to check but I feel like this is dirty.
Any suggestions?
Using the TPL isn't applicable in my case as I am using .NET 3.5.

Since it seems that this entire section of code is already running in a background thread, and you're doing nothing more than starting up a new thread just so that you can wait for it to finish, you'd be better off just calling Send directly, rather than asynchronously.
You don't need to fire off an event when you're completed.
You don't need to signal the main thread when it needs to continue.
You don't need to log the exceptions in a List, you can just throw them and catch them in SendMessage with a try/catch block.

This will do what you want:
public class MessageHandler
{
private AutoResetEvent MessageHasSent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private bool IsSuccess = false;
public void SendMessage()
{
MessageSender ms = new MessageSender();
ms.MessageSent += new EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs>(MessageHandler_MessageSent);
Thread t = new Thread(ms.Send());
t.Start();
MessageHasSent.WaitOne();
if(IsSuccess)
//wohooo
else
//oh crap
//Same again but for "Message recieved"
}
void MessageHandler_MessageSent(object sender, MessageSentEventArgs e)
{
IsSuccess = e.Errors.Count == 0;
MessageHasSent.Set();
}
}
public class MessageSender
{
public event EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs> MessageSent;
public void Send()
{
//Do some method which could potentiallialy return a List<Error>
MessageSent(this, new MessageSentEventArgs() { Errors = new List<Error>() });
}
}
public class Error { }
public class MessageSentEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public List<Error> Errors;
}