Develop Reference

How do I tell if my current thread is the UI thread?

I'm working on a user control for UWP and it updates some of its visuals upon certain calls. However, since the core .NET library has been shifted around and the threading classes have been severely cut back, I don't know how to identify from the method in the user control if the calling thread is the UI thread or not so it knows whether or not to use the dispatcher to change a dependency property.
Anyone know how to do this?
EDIT: The dispatcher functionally can be "invoked" async fine on the UI thread - however, I really don't know if this is a good idea - to try to invoke on the main thread from the main thread via the dispatcher. If anyone has a reason this is fine or bad, that would also contribute to answering the question. If there's no reason to not use the dispatcher on the main thread, then I guess there's no problem.

I have found the solution...
CoreDispatcher.HasThreadAccess returns a bool indicating if you are on the UI thread or not.

My son just encountered this as an Issue so I thought I would add an updated answer.
The Main UI thread can be accessed using the Core Dispatcher CoreWindow.GetForCurrentThread().Dispatcher or Windows.ApplicationModel.Core.CoreApplication.MainView.CoreWindow.Dispatcher
Below is a class that implements the Core Dispatcher and tests whether the calling thread is the Main UI Thread. If so it invokes the action, otherwise calls Dispatcher.RunAsync to execute it on the Main UI thread.
class Threading {
private static CoreDispatcher Dispatcher =>
Windows.ApplicationModel.Core.CoreApplication.MainView.CoreWindow.Dispatcher;
public static async void ThreadSafe(DispatchedHandler action)
{
// Calls Dispatcher.RunAsync to run a method on the Main UI Thread
IAsyncAction UiThread(DispatchedHandler proc) => Dispatcher.RunAsync(CoreDispatcherPriority.Normal, proc);
// Checks to see if this was called from the Main UI thread
// If we are in the Main UI thread then Invoke the action
// Otherwise: Send it to run in the Main Ui Thread.
if (Dispatcher.HasThreadAccess) { action.Invoke(); } else { await UiThread(action); };
}
}
The above class could be used like so:
// Some event handler callback
private void SomeCallback(object sender)(){
void line() => Frame.Navigate(typeof(PageName));
Threading.ThreadSafe(line);
}
// Pass a handle to the control and a string to update it's text property
internal static void ChangeControlText(dynamic ctrl , string v)
{
void line() {ctrl.Text= v;}
ThreadSafe(line);
}

C# Firing events within the thread they are added

Consider two classes; Producer and Consumer (the same as classical pattern, each with their own threads). Is it possible for Producer to have an Event which Consumer can register to and when the producer triggers the event, the consumer's event handler is run in its own thread? Here are my assumptions:
Consumer does not know if the Producer's event is triggered
within his own thread or another.
Neither Producer nor Consumer are descendants of Control so they don't have
BeginInvoke method inherited.
PS. I'm not trying to implement Producer - Consumer pattern. These are two simple classes which I'm trying to refactor the producer so it incorporates threads.
[UPDATE]
To further expand my problem, I'm trying to wrap a hardware driver to be worked with in the simplest way possible. For instance my wrapper will have a StateChanged event which the main application will register to so it will be notified when hardware is disconnected. As the actual driver has no means other than polling to check its presence , I will need to start a thread to check it periodically. Once it is not available anymore I will trigger the event which needs to be executed in the same thread as it was added. I know this is a classical Producer-Consumer pattern but since I'm trying to simplify using my driver-wrapper, I don't want the user code to implement consumer.
[UPDATE]
Due to some comments suggesting that there's no solution to this problem, I would like to add few lines which might change their minds. Considering the BeginInvoke can do what I want, so it shouldn't be impossible (at least in theory). Implementing my own BeginInvoke and calling it within the Producer is one way to look at it. It's just that I don't know how BeginInvoke does it!

You want to do inter thread communication. Yes it is possible.
Use System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.threading.dispatcher.aspx
The Dispatcher maintains a prioritized queue of work items for a specific thread.
When a Dispatcher is created on a thread, it becomes the only Dispatcher that can be associated with the thread, even if the Dispatcher is shut down.
If you attempt to get the CurrentDispatcher for the current thread and a Dispatcher is not associated with the thread, a Dispatcher will be created. A Dispatcher is also created when you create a DispatcherObject. If you create a Dispatcher on a background thread, be sure to shut down the dispatcher before exiting the thread.

Yes there is a way to do this. It relies on using the SynchronizationContext class (docs). The sync context abstracts the operations of sending messages from one thread to another via the methods Send (synchronous for the calling thread) and Post(async for the calling thread).
Let's take a slightly simpler situation where you only want the capture one sync context, the context of the "creator" thread. You would do something like this:
using System.Threading;
class HardwareEvents
{
private SynchronizationContext context;
private Timer timer;
public HardwareEvents()
{
context = SynchronizationContext.Current ?? new SynchronizationContext();
timer = new Timer(TimerMethod, null, 0, 1000); // start immediately, 1 sec interval.
}
private void TimerMethod(object state)
{
bool hardwareStateChanged = GetHardwareState();
if (hardwareStateChanged)
context.Post(s => StateChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty), null);
}
public event EventHandler StateChanged;
private bool GetHardwareState()
{
// do something to get the state here.
return true;
}
}
Now, the creating thread's sync context will be used when events are invoked. If the creating thread was a UI thread it will have a sync context supplied by the framework. If there is no sync context, then the default implementation is used, which invokes on the thread pool. SynchronizationContext is a class that you can subclass if you want to provide a custom way to send a message from the producer to the consumer thread. Just override Post and Send to send said message.
If you wanted every event subscriber to get called back on their own thread, you would have to capture the sync context in the add method. You then hold on to pairs of sync contexts and delegates. Then when raising the event, you would loop through the sync context / delegate pairs and Post each one in turn.
There are several other ways you could improve this. For example, you may want to suspend polling the hardware if there no subscribers to the event. Or you might want to back off your polling frequency if the hardware does not respond.

First, please note that in .NET / the Base Class Library, it is usually the event subscriber's obligation to ensure that its callback code is executing on the correct thread. That makes it easy for the event producer: it may just trigger its event without having to care about any thread affinities of its various subscribers.
Here's a complete example step-by-step of a possible implementation.
Let's start with something simple: The Producer class and its event, Event. My example won't include how and when this event gets triggered:
class Producer
{
public event EventHandler Event; // raised e.g. with `Event(this, EventArgs.Empty);`
}
Next, we want to be able to subscribe our Consumer instances to this event and be called back on a specific thread (I'll call this kind of thread a "worker thread"):
class Consumer
{
public void SubscribeToEventOf(Producer producer, WorkerThread targetWorkerThread) {…}
}
How do we implement this?
First, we need the means to "send" code to a specific worker thread. Since there is no way to force a thread to execute a particular method whenever you want it to, you must arrange for a worker thread to explicitly wait for work items. One way to do this is via a work item queue. Here's a possible implementation for WorkerThread:
sealed class WorkerThread
{
public WorkerThread()
{
this.workItems = new Queue<Action>();
this.workItemAvailable = new AutoResetEvent(initialState: false);
new Thread(ProcessWorkItems) { IsBackground = true }.Start();
}
readonly Queue<Action> workItems;
readonly AutoResetEvent workItemAvailable;
public void QueueWorkItem(Action workItem)
{
lock (workItems) // this is not extensively tested btw.
{
workItems.Enqueue(workItem);
}
workItemAvailable.Set();
}
void ProcessWorkItems()
{
for (;;)
{
workItemAvailable.WaitOne();
Action workItem;
lock (workItems) // dito, not extensively tested.
{
workItem = workItems.Dequeue();
if (workItems.Count > 0) workItemAvailable.Set();
}
workItem.Invoke();
}
}
}
This class basically starts a thread, and puts it in an infinite loop that falls asleep (WaitOne) until an item arrives in its queue (workItems). Once that happens, the item — an Action — is dequeued and invoked. Then the thread goes to sleep again (WaitOne)) until another item is available in the queue.
Actions are put in the queue via the QueueWorkItem method. So essentially we can now send code to be executed to a specific WorkerThread instance by calling that method. We're now ready to implement Customer.SubscribeToEventOf:
class Consumer
{
public void SubscribeToEventOf(Producer producer, WorkerThread targetWorkerThread)
{
producer.Event += delegate(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
targetWorkerThread.QueueWorkItem(() => OnEvent(sender, e));
};
}
protected virtual void OnEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// this code is executed on the worker thread(s) passed to `Subscribe…`.
}
}
Voilà!
P.S. (not discussed in detail): As an add-on, you could package the method of sending code to WorkerThread using a standard .NET mechanism called a SynchronizationContext:
sealed class WorkerThreadSynchronizationContext : SynchronizationContext
{
public WorkerThreadSynchronizationContext(WorkerThread workerThread)
{
this.workerThread = workerThread;
}
private readonly WorkerThread workerThread;
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
workerThread.QueueWorkItem(() => d(state));
}
// other overrides for `Send` etc. omitted
}
And at the beginning of WorkerThread.ProcessWorkItems, you'd set the synchronization context for that particular thread as follows:
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(
new WorkerThreadSynchronizationContext(this));

I posted earlier that I've been there, and that there is no nice solution.
However, I just stumbled upon something I have done in another context before: you could instantiate a timer (that is, Windows.Forms.Timer) when you create your wrapper object. This timer will post all Tick events to the ui thread.
Now if you're device polling logic is non-blocking and fast, you could implement it directly inside the timer Tick event, and raise your custom event there.
Otherwise, you could continue to do the polling logic inside a thread, and instead of firing the event inside the thread, you just flip some boolean variable which gets read by the timer every 10 ms, who then fires the event.
Note that this solution still requires that the object is created from the GUI thread, but at least the user of the object will not have to worry about Invoke.

It is possible. One typical approach is to use the BlockingCollection class. This data structure works like a normal queue except that the dequeue operation blocks the calling thread if the queue is empty. The produce will queue items by calling Add and the consumer will dequeue them by calling Take. The consumer typically runs it's own dedicated thread spinning an infinite loop waiting for items to appear in the queue. This is, more or less, how the message loop on the UI thread operates and is the basis for getting the Invoke and BeginInvoke operations to accomplish the marshaling behavior.
public class Consumer
{
private BlockingCollection<Action> queue = new BlockingCollection<Action>();
public Consumer()
{
var thread = new Thread(
() =>
{
while (true)
{
Action method = queue.Take();
method();
}
});
thread.Start();
}
public void BeginInvoke(Action method)
{
queue.Add(item);
}
}

How to get access to the Main Thread

Is there a way to get a reference to the Main UI thread in Windows Forms from another worker thread?
Something like this:
public void FormLoad()//we are in Main UI Thread
{
Thread backThread = new Thread(DoWork);
backThread.Start();
}
public void DoWork()
{
//get Main Thread instance
//do some work
}
UPDATE
I`m interested if there is some static property or class to get reference to main thread like Thread.CurrentThread for getting current thread.

Thread MainThread=null;//for reference
public void FormLoad()//we are in Main UI Thread
{
MainThread=Thread.CurrentThread;//main thread reference
Thread backThread = new Thread(DoWork);
backThread.Start();
}
public void DoWork()
{
//get Main Thread instance
//do some work
}
This should work!!!

Well, you can always use ParameterizedThreadStart to start a thread and send parameters to it, since it's an object, you could pass a reference to the calling thread.

Knowing the Thread instance won't help, as that doesn't allow you to do anything useful. What you presumably want is to be able to get the main thread to do something (like: update itself).
In windows forms, you should have a sync-context; simply access SynchronizationContext.Current, and should should be able to use Post or Send to pass work to the main thread.
Alternatively, if that doesn't work (the ambient sync-context is null): pass any control/form to your worker; it can then call Invoke/BeginInvoke to pass work to the main thread.
An alternative approach is to expose an event that you Invoke, have the UI listen to that event, and have the UI deal with switching back to the main thread, by calling Invoke/BeginInvoke upon itself (when handling the event).

C# non-UI cross-thread invocation

I'm trying to make cross-threaded calls in C#.
Whenever I invoke the methods of an object created in the context of thread A from a static method called from thread B, the method always runs in thread B. I don't want that, I want it run on the same thread as the thread A object whose methods I am calling.
Invoke works fine for UI calls and I've read dozens of articles and SO answers relating to different ways of making cross-threaded Forms/WPF calls. However whatever I try (event handling, delegates, etc) Thread A's object's method will always run in Thread B if it is invoked by Thread B.
What part of the library should I be looking in to solve this? If it's relevant, Thread B currently 'spins', reads from a network port and occasionally invokes Thread A's object's method through a delegate that was created in Thread A and passed in using a ParameterizedThreadStart.
I'm not looking to change paradigm, just send a message (a request to invoke a method) from one thread (Thread B) to another (Thread A).
EDIT:
My question was 'what part of the library should I be looking in to solve this?' The answer appears to be none. If I want to clearly delineate consumption and polling I'll have to write my own code to handle that.

Whenever I invoke the methods of an object running on thread A
Objects don't run on threads.
In order for this to work, you will have to create some kind of queue you can shove a delegate into that will be routinely checked thread A's main loop. Something like this, assuming that Something.MainThreadLoop is the entry point for thread A:
public class Something
{
private Queue<Action> actionQueue = new Queue<Action>();
private volatile bool threadRunning = true;
public void RunOnThread(Action action)
{
if (action == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
lock (actionQueue)
actionQueue.Enqueue(action);
}
public void Stop()
{
threadRunning = false;
}
private void RunPendingActions()
{
while (actionQueue.Count > 0) {
Action action;
lock (actionQueue)
action = actionQueue.Dequeue();
action();
}
}
public void MainThreadLoop()
{
while (threadRunning) {
// Do the stuff you were already doing on this thread.
// Then, periodically...
RunPendingActions();
}
}
}
Then, given a reference to a Something object, you could do this:
something.RunOnThread(() => Console.WriteLine("I was printed from thread A!"));

Code runs on threads. Objects aren't (generally - see thread local) bound to a particular thread. By doing WinFormControl.Invoke or WPFControl.Invoke, you are posting a message to the Message Pump or Dispatcher respectively, to run some code at a later date.
The message pump is something like this:
Message message;
while(GetMessage(&message))
{
ProcessMessage(message);
}
Microsoft has specifically built their UI controls and projects to allow the posting of messages across threads. Calling a method from thread A will always execute that method on thread A, even if it ends up doing some kind of asynchronous work and returning early.
Edit:
What it is I think you need is the Producer Consumer pattern.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yy12yx1f(VS.80).aspx
Forget about consuming the messages from your main thread, which is what it sounds like you want to do. Consume from thread C.
Thread A is doing 'much more important things'. Thread B is spinning, listening for messages. Thread C is consuming those messages.
No need for marshalling across threads.

EDIT: I think you probably want to use the System.Threading.AutoResetEvent class. The MSDN documentation has a decent example of one thread waiting on the other that I think is similar to what you are trying to do: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.autoresetevent.aspx
In particular, pay attention to the calls to trigger.WaitOne() and trigger.Set()
EDIT2: Added option #3 after reading new comment from OP.
"Whenever I invoke the methods of an object running on thread A ..." - An object doesn't "run" on a thread and isn't really owned by any thread, regardless of what thread created the object.
Given that your question is regarding "non-UI cross-thread invocation", I assume you are already familiar with "UI cross-thread invocation". I can see how WinForms would give you an impression that a thread owns an object and that you need to "send a message" to a thread in order to make it do something.
WinForm control objects are kind of a special case in that they simply don't function properly if you interact with them with a thread that isn't the one that created them, but that's not caused by the way that threads and objects interact.
Anyway, on to addressing your question.
First, a question to clarify the problem: You've mentioned what Thread B is doing, but what is Thread A doing prior to being "invoked" by Thread B?
Here are a couple of ideas that I think are along the lines of what you want to do:
Don't create Thread A until you need to. Instead of having Thread B "send a message to Thread A", rather have Thread B create Thread A (or call it Thread C if you prefer) and make it start executing at that time.
If you need Thread A to already exist and you only want Thread A to handle Thread B's events one at a time, you could have Thread A wait until it receives a notification from Thread B. Take a look at the System.Threading.WaitHandle class (derived classes of interest are ManualResetEvent and AutoResetEvent).
Thread A will at some point call WaitHandle.WaitOne(), which will cause it to pause and wait until Thread B calls WaitHandle.Set() on the same WaitHandle object.
If Thread A is busy doing other things, then you might want to set up some kind of flag variable. Similar to the WaitHandle concept in #2, but instead of causing Thread A to pause, you just want Thread B to set a flag (perhaps just a boolean variable) that will signal to Thread A that it needs to do something. While Thread A is busy doing other things, it can periodically check that flag to decide whether or not there is work that needs to be done.
Does the method that Thread A will execute on your object require any input from Thread B? Then before Thread B calls WaitHandle.Set(), have it stick some data into a queue or something. Then, when Thread A is "activated", it can retrieve that data from the queue and proceed to execute the object's method using that data. Use a lock mechanism (i.e. the C# lock statement) to synchronize access to the queue.

What you're going to have to do is roll a sort of Queue and have Thread A watch that queue for work. When Thread A sees new work enter the queue, it can dequeue it and do the work, then return to waiting for more.
Here's some pseudo-code:
public class ThreadAQueue
{
private Queue<delegate> _queue;
private bool _quitWorking;
public void EnqueueSomeWork(delegate work)
{
lock(_queue)
{
_queue.Enqueue(work);
}
}
private void DoTheWork()
{
while(!quitWorking)
{
delegate myWork;
lock(_queue)
{
if(_queue.Count > 1)
myWork = _queue.Dequeue();
}
myWork();
}
}
}

C# Multi threading- Move objects between threads

i am working with a winforms control that is both a GUI element and also does some internal processing that has not been exposed to the developer. When this component is instantiated it may take between 5 and 15 seconds to become ready so what i want to do is put it on another thread and when its done bring it back to the gui thread and place it on my form. The problem is that this will (and has) cause a cross thread exception.
Normally when i work with worker threads its just with simple data objects i can push back when processing is complete and then use with controls already on the main thread but ive never needed to move an entire control in this fashion.
Does anyone know if this is possible and if so how? If not how does one deal with a problem like this where there is the potential to lock the main gui?

You don't need to lock the GUI, you just need to call invoke:
Controls in Windows Forms are bound to
a specific thread and are not thread
safe. Therefore, if you are calling a
control's method from a different
thread, you must use one of the
control's invoke methods to marshal
the call to the proper thread. This
property can be used to determine if
you must call an invoke method, which
can be useful if you do not know what
thread owns a control. ref
Here is how it looks in code:
public delegate void ComponentReadyDelegate(YourComponent component);
public void LoadComponent(YourComponent component)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
ComponentReadyDelegate e = new ComponentReadyDelegate(LoadComponent);
this.BeginInvoke(e, new object[]{component});
}
else
{
// The component is used by a UI control
component.DoSomething();
component.GetSomething();
}
}
// From the other thread just initialize the component
// and call the LoadComponent method on the GUI.
component.Initialize(); // 5-15 seconds
yourForm.LoadComponent(component);
Normally calling the LoadComponent from another thread will cause a cross-thread exception, but with the above implementation the method will be invoked on the GUI thread.
InvokeRequired tells you if:
the caller must call an invoke method
when making method calls to the
control because the caller is on a
different thread than the one the
control was created on.
ref
Update:
So if I understand you correctly the control object is created on a thread other than the GUI thread, therefore even if you were able to pass it to the GUI thread you still won't be able to use it without causing a cross-thread exception. The solution would be to create the object on the GUI thread, but initialize it on a separate thread:
public partial class MyForm : Form
{
public delegate void ComponentReadyDelegate(YourComponent component);
private YourComponent _component;
public MyForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
// The componet is created on the same thread as the GUI
_component = new YourComponent();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o =>
{
// The initialization takes 5-10 seconds
// so just initialize the component in separate thread
_component.Initialize();
LoadComponent(_component);
});
}
public void LoadComponent(YourComponent component)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
ComponentReadyDelegate e = new ComponentReadyDelegate(LoadComponent);
this.BeginInvoke(e, new object[]{component});
}
else
{
// The component is used by a UI control
component.DoSomething();
component.GetSomething();
}
}
}

Without knowing too much about the object. To avoid cross thread exceptions, you can make the initial thread invoke a call (Even if you are calling from a thread).
Copied and pasted from one of my own applications :
private delegate void UpdateStatusBoxDel(string status);
private void UpdateStatusBox(string status)
{
listBoxStats.Items.Add(status);
listBoxStats.SelectedIndex = listBoxStats.Items.Count - 1;
labelSuccessful.Text = SuccessfulSubmits.ToString();
labelFailed.Text = FailedSubmits.ToString();
}
private void UpdateStatusBoxAsync(string status)
{
if(!areWeStopping)
this.BeginInvoke(new UpdateStatusBoxDel(UpdateStatusBox), status);
}
So essentially the threaded task will call the "Async" method. Which will then tell the main form to begininvoke (Actually async itself).
I believe there is probably a shorter way to do all of this, without the need for creating delegates and two different methods. But this way is just ingrained into me. And it's what the Microsoft books teach to you do :p

The BackgroundWorker class is designed for exactly this situation. It will manage the thread for you, and let you start the thread, as well as cancel the thread. The thread can send events back to the GUI thread for status updates, or completion. The event handlers for these status and completion events are in the main GUI thread, and can update your WinForm controls. And the WinForm doesn't get locked. It's everything you need. (And works equally well in WPF and Silverlight, too.)

The control must be created and modified from the UI thread, there's no way around that.
In order to keep the UI responsive while doing long-running initialization, keep the process on a background thread and invoke any control access. The UI should remain responsive, but if it doesn't, you can add some wait time to the background thread. This is an example, using .Net 4 parallel tools: http://www.lovethedot.net/2009/01/parallel-programming-in-net-40-and_30.html
If interaction with the specific control being initialized can't be allowed until initialization finishes, then hide or disable it until complete.