I've created class for reusing thread. This class has one public method for queueing jobs.
public AwaitableJob<T> PrepareJob(Func<T> job)
{
lock (locker)
{
var aj = new AwaitableJob<T>(job);
taskQueue.Enqueue(aj);
System.Threading.Monitor.PulseAll(locker);
return aj;
}
}
AwaitableJob is custom class which should provide awaiter object.
public class AwaitableJob<T> : INotifyCompletion where T : class
{
public Func<T> Job { get; private set; }
public bool IsCompleted { get; private set; } = false;
private object result;
public AwaitableJob(Func<T> job)
{
this.Job = job;
}
public AwaitableJob<T> GetAwaiter()
{
return this;
}
public void Invoke()
{
result = Job.Invoke();
IsCompleted = true;
}
public object GetResult()
{
return result;
}
public void OnCompleted(Action continuation)
{
continuation.Invoke();
}
}
And I tried to use it this way
public async void Connect()
{
var atm = await Worker.PrepareJob(ConnectHelper) as PresentModel;
if (atm == null) return;
var vm = new SwitchingViewModel(atm);
vm.NavigateTo();
}
But instead of waiting it always continues in execution so atm variable is always null. When I added breakpoints into AwaitableJob it showed that GetResult is called before IsCompleted was setted to true. Anyone knows where could be problem? Thanks for your help.
The problem is here:
public void OnCompleted(Action continuation)
{
continuation.Invoke();
}
The point of OnCompleted is to register a callback for when it has completed, but you are invoking the continuation now. The only time you should do that is for the thread-race condition where somebody checks IsCompleted and gets false, but the status changes between that and registering the callback. Other than that, what you should be doing is storing the callback, and invoking it from the code that actually changes the status to completed (which looks like your Invoke method), again remembering to consider thread-safety around the switchover.
Frankly, if this sounds complex: use TaskCompletionSource<T>
Related
I have a simple task queue that allows one task to execute at a time:
public class TaskQueue
{
public SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
public TaskQueue()
{
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
}
public async Task<T> Enqueue<T>(Func<Task<T>> taskGenerator)
{
await semaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
return await taskGenerator();
}
finally
{
semaphore.Release();
}
}
public async Task Enqueue(Func<Task> taskGenerator)
{
await semaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
await taskGenerator();
}
finally
{
semaphore.Release();
}
}
}
And I would queue a task in there like so:
private async Task SaveData()
{
//some code
await taskQueue.Enqueue(async () => { printed = await pm.Print(Template); });
//some code
}
Now what I would like to do is inside the Enqueue method add a log that will contain the info $Print was called with parameter {Template}. How can I get the name of the method executed and it's parameters?
I know I can do [CallerMemberName] string caller = "" to get info that the call was made inside SaveData, but is there an attribute or something to log the info I want?
this is possible (expression trees, etc), but it is incredibly inefficient; perhaps a better approach is to enqueue an object instead, i.e.
abstract class ThingToDo {
public abstract Task DoTheThingAsync();
}
and make your queue a queue of ThingToDo instead of Func<Task<T>>, then you can have things like:
sealed class PrintThing : ThingToDo {
private readonly int x;
private readonly string y;
private readonly string caller;
public PrintThing(int x, string y, [CallerMemberName] string caller = null) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.caller = caller;
}
public override Task DoTheThingAsync() {...}
public override ToString() => $"{nameof(PrintThing)}, x={x}, y={y} from {caller}";
}
and now you can output the task trivially.
In reality, this isn't all that different to what the compiler would generate anyway for a lambda/anonymous method with captured variables.
I would add the log into the different methods. That way you can also specialize the log messages produced by each method.
I working on real-time search. At this moment on property setter which is bounded to edit text, I call a method which calls API and then fills the list with the result it looks like this:
private string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
SetProperty(ref searchPhrase, value);
RunOnMainThread(SearchResult.Clear);
isAllFriends = false;
currentPage = 0;
RunInAsync(LoadData);
}
}
private async Task LoadData()
{
var response = await connectionRepository.GetConnections(currentPage,
pageSize, searchPhrase);
foreach (UserConnection uc in response)
{
if (uc.Type != UserConnection.TypeEnum.Awaiting)
{
RunOnMainThread(() =>
SearchResult.Add(new ConnectionUser(uc)));
}
}
}
But this way is totally useless because of it totally mashup list of a result if a text is entering quickly. So to prevent this I want to run this method async in a property but if a property is changed again I want to kill the previous Task and star it again. How can I achieve this?
Some informations from this thread:
create a CancellationTokenSource
var ctc = new CancellationTokenSource();
create a method doing the async work
private static Task ExecuteLongCancellableMethod(CancellationToken token)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// more code here
// check again if this task is canceled
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// more code
}
}
It is important to have this checks for cancel in the code.
Execute the function:
var cancellable = ExecuteLongCancellableMethod(ctc.Token);
To stop the long running execution use
ctc.Cancel();
For further details please consult the linked thread.
This question can be answered in many different ways. However IMO I would look at creating a class that
Delays itself automatically for X (ms) before performing the seach
Has the ability to be cancelled at any time as the search request changes.
Realistically this will change your code design, and should encapsulate the logic for both 1 & 2 in a separate class.
My initial thoughts are (and none of this is tested and mostly pseudo code).
class ConnectionSearch
{
public ConnectionSearch(string phrase, Action<object> addAction)
{
_searchPhrase = phrase;
_addAction = addAction;
_cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
}
readonly string _searchPhrase = null;
readonly Action<object> _addAction;
readonly CancellationTokenSource _cancelSource;
public void Cancel()
{
_cancelSource?.Cancel();
}
public async void PerformSearch()
{
await Task.Delay(300); //await 300ms between keystrokes
if (_cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
//continue your code keep checking for
//loop your dataset
//call _addAction?.Invoke(uc);
}
}
This is basic, really just encapsulates the logic for both points 1 & 2, you will need to adapt the code to do the search.
Next you could change your property to cancel a previous running instance, and then start another instance immediatly after something like below.
ConnectionSearch connectionSearch;
string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
//do your setter work
if(connectionSearch != null)
{
connectionSearch.Cancel();
}
connectionSearch = new ConnectionSearch(value, addConnectionUser);
connectionSearch.PerformSearch();
}
}
void addConnectionUser(object uc)
{
//pperform your add logic..
}
The code is pretty straight forward, however you will see in the setter is simply cancelling an existing request and then creating a new request. You could put some disposal cleanup logic in place but this should get you started.
You can implement some sort of debouncer which will encapsulate the logics of task result debouncing, i.e. it will assure if you run many tasks, then only the latest task result will be used:
public class TaskDebouncer<TResult>
{
public delegate void TaskDebouncerHandler(TResult result, object sender);
public event TaskDebouncerHandler OnCompleted;
public event TaskDebouncerHandler OnDebounced;
private Task _lastTask;
private object _lock = new object();
public void Run(Task<TResult> task)
{
lock (_lock)
{
_lastTask = task;
}
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
if (t.IsFaulted)
throw t.Exception;
lock (_lock)
{
if (_lastTask == task)
{
OnCompleted?.Invoke(t.Result, this);
}
else
{
OnDebounced?.Invoke(t.Result, this);
}
}
});
}
public async Task WaitLast()
{
await _lastTask;
}
}
Then, you can just do:
private readonly TaskDebouncer<Connections[]> _connectionsDebouncer = new TaskDebouncer<Connections[]>();
public ClassName()
{
_connectionsDebouncer.OnCompleted += OnConnectionUpdate;
}
public void OnConnectionUpdate(Connections[] connections, object sender)
{
RunOnMainThread(SearchResult.Clear);
isAllFriends = false;
currentPage = 0;
foreach (var conn in connections)
RunOnMainThread(() => SearchResult.Add(new ConnectionUser(conn)));
}
private string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
SetProperty(ref searchPhrase, value);
_connectionsDebouncer.Add(RunInAsync(LoadData));
}
}
private async Task<Connection[]> LoadData()
{
return await connectionRepository
.GetConnections(currentPage, pageSize, searchPhrase)
.Where(conn => conn.Type != UserConnection.TypeEnum.Awaiting)
.ToArray();
}
It is not pretty clear what RunInAsync and RunOnMainThread methods are.
I guess, you don't actually need them.
I'm trying create a class that has events AND can be awaitable, but keep coming across stumbling blocks.
First, I tried a TransferJob class that returns a TransferTask object which is already running when it is returned. This would be accomplished through something like this:
public abstract class TransferJob
{
public TransferTask Start()
{
return Start(CancellationToken.None);
}
public TransferTask Start(CancellationToken token)
{
TransferTask task = CreateTransferTask();
task.Start(token);
return task;
}
protected abstract TransferTask CreateTransferTask();
}
public abstract class TransferTask
{
public event EventHandler<TransferStatusChangedEventArgs> StatusChanged;
private Task transferTask;
private TransferStatus status;
public TransferStatus Status
{
get { return this.status; }
protected set
{
TransferStatus oldStatus = this.status;
this.status = value;
OnStatusChanged(new TransferStatusChangedEventArgs(oldStatus, value));
}
}
internal void Start(CancellationToken token)
{
this.transferTask = TransferAsync(cancellationToken);
}
protected abstract Task TransferAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
protected virtual void OnStatusChanged(TransferStatusChangedEventArgs txStatusArgs)
{
if (this.StatusChanged != null)
{
this.StatusChanged(this, txStatusArgs);
}
}
public TaskAwaiter GetAwaiter()
{
return this.transferTask.GetAwaiter();
}
}
The problem with the above is that if the TransferTask finishes very quickly, then users of TransferJob.Start() might not have time to register their event handlers on the returned TransferTask's StatusChanged event before it finishes. So I tried a different approach whereby the user has to call the TransferTask's Start() method themselves. This would give the user time to register their event handlers on the TransferTask in between the transferJob.CreateTask() call and the transferTask.Start() call:
public abstract class TransferJob
{
public abstract TransferTask CreateTask();
}
public abstract class TransferTask
{
public event EventHandler<TransferStatusChangedEventArgs> StatusChanged;
private Task transferTask;
private TransferStatus status;
public TransferStatus Status
{
get { return this.status; }
protected set
{
TransferStatus oldStatus = this.status;
this.status = value;
OnStatusChanged(new TransferStatusChangedEventArgs(oldStatus, value));
}
}
public void Start(CancellationToken token)
{
this.transferTask = TransferAsync(cancellationToken);
}
protected abstract Task TransferAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
protected virtual void OnStatusChanged(TransferStatusChangedEventArgs txStatusArgs)
{
if (this.StatusChanged != null)
{
this.StatusChanged(this, txStatusArgs);
}
}
public TaskAwaiter GetAwaiter()
{
return this.transferTask.GetAwaiter();
}
}
Now, I have a different problem. If a user tries await transferTask; before transferTask.Start(); has been called, then presumably they'll get a NullReferenceException thrown because the task hasn't been started (and therefore assigned to the transferTask field). I'm really struggling for a way to solve this. Is there a way? Or a better pattern to use than the above?
I'm not really convinced this is a good idea. Just expose the TAP pattern. Delete the event as well as transferTask. The caller of Start must hold onto that task and pass it to any code that wants to listen for completion. This results in a very clean API. No mutable state, very simple to understand, supports all use cases.
If you insist, you can create a proxy task that looks like it's the real thing:
public abstract class TransferTask
{
public event EventHandler<TransferStatusChangedEventArgs> StatusChanged;
private TaskCompletionSource<object> transferTask = new ...; //changed
private TransferStatus status;
public TransferStatus Status
{
get { return this.status; }
protected set
{
TransferStatus oldStatus = this.status;
this.status = value;
OnStatusChanged(new TransferStatusChangedEventArgs(oldStatus, value));
}
}
public Task Start(CancellationToken token)
{
await TransferAsync(cancellationToken);
transferTask.SetResult(null); //complete proxy task
}
protected abstract Task TransferAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
protected virtual void OnStatusChanged(TransferStatusChangedEventArgs txStatusArgs)
{
if (this.StatusChanged != null)
{
this.StatusChanged(this, txStatusArgs);
}
}
public TaskAwaiter GetAwaiter()
{
return this.transferTask.Task.GetAwaiter(); //changed
}
}
Now, transferTask.Task is always not null. That task will eventually complete. I quickly hacked this together, I hope the idea is clear.
Probably, you should base the event on transferTask.Task.ContinueWith(...).
The best way I found when trying to mix events and awaitable code in C# is to use the Reactive Extension (Rx) library. From Microsoft:
Reactive Extension (Rx) is a library to compose asynchronous and event-based programs using observable collections and LINQ-style query operators.
You could do something like the following to fix your issue. (I am not sure this is exactly what you want to accomplish, but the goal is just to demonstrate how Rx can be used to combine events with asynchronous code):
public async Task TransferAndWaitStartedAsync()
{
var transferTask = new TransferTask();
// Prepare the observable before executing the transfer to make sure that the observable sequence will receive the event
// You can use Linq operators to filter only specific events. In this case, I only care about events with Status == StatusCode.Started
var whenStatusChanged = Observable.FromEventPattern<TransferStatusChangedEventArgs>(h, transferTask.StatusChanged += h, h => transferTask.StatusChanged -= h)
.Where(e => e.EventArgs.Status == StatusCode.Started)
.FirstAsync();
// Start the transfer asynchronously
await transferTask.TransferAsync();
// Continuation will complete when receiving the first event that matches the predicate in the observable sequence even if the event was triggered too quickly.
await whenStatusChanged;
}
I find that the Rx library has a steep learning curve with all its subtleties, but when you know how to use it, it is a really powerful tool.
Intro to Rx with lot of examples
Design guidelines
I have a system which uses AOP with ContextBoundObject.
This is used to intercept a method call and perform certain operations before and after the function. It all works fine until I make the 'function to be intercepted' async.
I understand that the C# compiler rewrites async methods into a state machine, which returns control to the sink as soon as 'await' is reached
So it continues into the interception and executes the code which is meant to be executed only after the Method.
I can see there is an "AsyncProcessMessage" in IMessageSink, but I can't find a way to invoke it, and I am not sure if it will work in the async/await scenario.
Is there a way to make Async/Await work with the ContextBoundObject? Is using another Aspect Oriented Programming approach the only option here?
The code sample below has the method to be intercepted decorated with the 'Audit' attribute and placed in the AuditFacade which is a ContextBoundObject. The SyncProcessMessage method in the AuditSink has the logic to be executed before and after the method.
[AuditBoundary]
public class AuditFacade : ContextBoundObject
{
[Audit]
public ResponseObject DoSomthing()
{
//Do something
return new ResponseObject();
}
/// <summary>
/// Async Method to be intercepted
/// </summary>
/// <returns></returns>
[Audit]
public async Task<ResponseObject> DoSomthingAysnc()
{
//Do something Async
await Task.Delay(10000);
return new ResponseObject();
}
}
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method)]
public class AuditAttribute : Attribute
{
}
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)]
public class AuditBoundaryAttribute : ContextAttribute
{
public AuditBoundaryAttribute()
: base("AuditBoundary" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString())
{
}
public override void GetPropertiesForNewContext(IConstructionCallMessage ctorMsg)
{
ctorMsg.ContextProperties.Add(new AuditProperty());
}
}
public class AuditProperty : IContextProperty, IContributeObjectSink
{
public string Name
{
get { return "AuditProperty"; }
}
public bool IsNewContextOK(Context newCtx)
{
var p = newCtx.GetProperty("AuditProperty") as AuditProperty;
if (p == null)
return false;
return true;
}
public void Freeze(Context newContext)
{
}
public IMessageSink GetObjectSink(MarshalByRefObject obj, IMessageSink nextSink)
{
return new AuditSink(nextSink);
}
}
public class AuditSink : IMessageSink
{
private IMessageSink nextSink;
public AuditSink(IMessageSink nextSink)
{
this.nextSink = nextSink;
}
public IMessage SyncProcessMessage(IMessage msg)
{
var message = msg as IMethodCallMessage;
IMethodReturnMessage returnMessage = null;
ResponseObject response;
//Some Pre Processing happens here
var newMessage = new MethodCallMessageWrapper(message);
//Invoke the Method to be Audited
returnMessage = nextSink.SyncProcessMessage(newMessage) as IMethodReturnMessage;
response = returnMessage.ReturnValue as ResponseObject;
//Some Post Processing happens here with the "response"
return returnMessage;
}
public IMessageSink NextSink
{
get { return this.nextSink; }
}
public IMessageCtrl AsyncProcessMessage(IMessage msg, IMessageSink replySink)
{
return nextSink.AsyncProcessMessage(msg, replySink);
}
}
I don't know anything about ContextBoundObject, but I think that AsyncProcessMessage() has nothing to do with async-await and that the following should work using the normal SyncProcessMessage():
Do your preprocessing step.
Invoke the async method.
Add your postprocessing step as a continuation to the returned Task, using ContinueWith() or await.
Return the continuation Task to the caller.
If you're okay with your postprocessing executing on the thread pool, then ContinueWith() is probably simpler. If you need the postprocessing to execute on the original context, use await.
The await version could look like this:
var responseTask = (Task<ResponseObject>)returnMessage.ReturnValue;
Func<Task<ResponseObject>> postProcessTaskFunc = async () =>
{
var response = await responseTask;
// Some Post Processing happens here with the "response"
return response;
}
return new ReturnMessage(postProcessTaskFunc(), …);
I have a method that queues some work to be executed asynchronously. I'd like to return some sort of handle to the caller that can be polled, waited on, or used to fetch the return value from the operation, but I can't find a class or interface that's suitable for the task.
BackgroundWorker comes close, but it's geared to the case where the worker has its own dedicated thread, which isn't true in my case. IAsyncResult looks promising, but the provided AsyncResult implementation is also unusable for me. Should I implement IAsyncResult myself?
Clarification:
I have a class that conceptually looks like this:
class AsyncScheduler
{
private List<object> _workList = new List<object>();
private bool _finished = false;
public SomeHandle QueueAsyncWork(object workObject)
{
// simplified for the sake of example
_workList.Add(workObject);
return SomeHandle;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
foreach (object workObject in _workList)
{
if (!workObject.IsFinished)
{
workObject.DoSomeWork();
}
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
The QueueAsyncWork function pushes a work item onto the polling list for a dedicated work thread, of which there will only over be one. My problem is not with writing the QueueAsyncWork function--that's fine. My question is, what do I return to the caller? What should SomeHandle be?
The existing .Net classes for this are geared towards the situation where the asynchronous operation can be encapsulated in a single method call that returns. That's not the case here--all of the work objects do their work on the same thread, and a complete work operation might span multiple calls to workObject.DoSomeWork(). In this case, what's a reasonable approach for offering the caller some handle for progress notification, completion, and getting the final outcome of the operation?
Yes, implement IAsyncResult (or rather, an extended version of it, to provide for progress reporting).
public class WorkObjectHandle : IAsyncResult, IDisposable
{
private int _percentComplete;
private ManualResetEvent _waitHandle;
public int PercentComplete {
get {return _percentComplete;}
set
{
if (value < 0 || value > 100) throw new InvalidArgumentException("Percent complete should be between 0 and 100");
if (_percentComplete = 100) throw new InvalidOperationException("Already complete");
if (value == 100 && Complete != null) Complete(this, new CompleteArgs(WorkObject));
_percentComplete = value;
}
public IWorkObject WorkObject {get; private set;}
public object AsyncState {get {return WorkObject;}}
public bool IsCompleted {get {return _percentComplete == 100;}}
public event EventHandler<CompleteArgs> Complete; // CompleteArgs in a usual pattern
// you may also want to have Progress event
public bool CompletedSynchronously {get {return false;}}
public WaitHandle
{
get
{
// initialize it lazily
if (_waitHandle == null)
{
ManualResetEvent newWaitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _waitHandle, newWaitHandle, null) != null)
newWaitHandle.Dispose();
}
return _waitHandle;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_waitHandle != null)
_waitHandle.Dispose();
// dispose _workObject too, if needed
}
public WorkObjectHandle(IWorkObject workObject)
{
WorkObject = workObject;
_percentComplete = 0;
}
}
public class AsyncScheduler
{
private Queue<WorkObjectHandle> _workQueue = new Queue<WorkObjectHandle>();
private bool _finished = false;
public WorkObjectHandle QueueAsyncWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
var handle = new WorkObjectHandle(workObject);
lock(_workQueue)
{
_workQueue.Enqueue(handle);
}
return handle;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
WorkObjectHandle handle;
lock(_workQueue)
{
if (_workQueue.Count == 0) break;
handle = _workQueue.Dequeue();
}
try
{
var workObject = handle.WorkObject;
// do whatever you want with workObject, set handle.PercentCompleted, etc.
}
finally
{
handle.Dispose();
}
}
}
}
If I understand correctly you have a collection of work objects (IWorkObject) that each complete a task via multiple calls to a DoSomeWork method. When an IWorkObject object has finished its work you'd like to respond to that somehow and during the process you'd like to respond to any reported progress?
In that case I'd suggest you take a slightly different approach. You could take a look at the Parallel Extension framework (blog). Using the framework, you could write something like this:
public void QueueWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
Task.TaskFactory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (!workObject.Finished)
{
int progress = workObject.DoSomeWork();
DoSomethingWithReportedProgress(workObject, progress);
}
WorkObjectIsFinished(workObject);
});
}
Some things to note:
QueueWork now returns void. The reason for this is that the actions that occur when progress is reported or when the task completes have become part of the thread that executes the work. You could of course return the Task that the factory creates and return that from the method (to enable polling for example).
The progress-reporting and finish-handling are now part of the thread because you should always avoid polling when possible. Polling is more expensive because usually you either poll too frequently (too early) or not often enough (too late). There is no reason you can't report on the progress and finishing of the task from within the thread that is running the task.
The above could also be implemented using the (lower level) ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem method.
Using QueueUserWorkItem:
public void QueueWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(() =>
{
while (!workObject.Finished)
{
int progress = workObject.DoSomeWork();
DoSomethingWithReportedProgress(workObject, progress);
}
WorkObjectIsFinished(workObject);
});
}
The WorkObject class can contain the properties that need to be tracked.
public class WorkObject
{
public PercentComplete { get; private set; }
public IsFinished { get; private set; }
public void DoSomeWork()
{
// work done here
this.PercentComplete = 50;
// some more work done here
this.PercentComplete = 100;
this.IsFinished = true;
}
}
Then in your example:
Change the collection from a List to a Dictionary that can hold Guid values (or any other means of uniquely identifying the value).
Expose the correct WorkObject's properties by having the caller pass the Guid that it received from QueueAsyncWork.
I'm assuming that you'll start WorkThread asynchronously (albeit, the only asynchronous thread); plus, you'll have to make retrieving the dictionary values and WorkObject properties thread-safe.
private Dictionary<Guid, WorkObject> _workList =
new Dictionary<Guid, WorkObject>();
private bool _finished = false;
public Guid QueueAsyncWork(WorkObject workObject)
{
Guid guid = Guid.NewGuid();
// simplified for the sake of example
_workList.Add(guid, workObject);
return guid;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
foreach (WorkObject workObject in _workList)
{
if (!workObject.IsFinished)
{
workObject.DoSomeWork();
}
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
// an example of getting the WorkObject's property
public int GetPercentComplete(Guid guid)
{
WorkObject workObject = null;
if (!_workList.TryGetValue(guid, out workObject)
throw new Exception("Unable to find Guid");
return workObject.PercentComplete;
}
The simplest way to do this is described here. Suppose you have a method string DoSomeWork(int). You then create a delegate of the correct type, for example:
Func<int, string> myDelegate = DoSomeWork;
Then you call the BeginInvoke method on the delegate:
int parameter = 10;
myDelegate.BeginInvoke(parameter, Callback, null);
The Callback delegate will be called once your asynchronous call has completed. You can define this method as follows:
void Callback(IAsyncResult result)
{
var asyncResult = (AsyncResult) result;
var #delegate = (Func<int, string>) asyncResult.AsyncDelegate;
string methodReturnValue = #delegate.EndInvoke(result);
}
Using the described scenario, you can also poll for results or wait on them. Take a look at the url I provided for more info.
Regards,
Ronald
If you don't want to use async callbacks, you can use an explicit WaitHandle, such as a ManualResetEvent:
public abstract class WorkObject : IDispose
{
ManualResetEvent _waitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void DoSomeWork()
{
try
{
this.DoSomeWorkOverride();
}
finally
{
_waitHandle.Set();
}
}
protected abstract DoSomeWorkOverride();
public void WaitForCompletion()
{
_waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_waitHandle.Dispose();
}
}
And in your code you could say
using (var workObject = new SomeConcreteWorkObject())
{
asyncScheduler.QueueAsyncWork(workObject);
workObject.WaitForCompletion();
}
Don't forget to call Dispose on your workObject though.
You can always use alternate implementations which create a wrapper like this for every work object, and who call _waitHandle.Dispose() in WaitForCompletion(), you can lazily instantiate the wait handle (careful: race conditions ahead), etc. (That's pretty much what BeginInvoke does for delegates.)