I want to call a method after some delay when an event is raised, but any subsequent events should "restart" this delay. Quick example to illustrate, the view should be updated when scrollbar position changes, but only 1 second after the user has finished scrolling.
Now I can see many ways of implementing that, but the most intuitive would be to use Task.Delay + ContinueWith + cancellation token. However, I am experiencing some issues, more precisely subsequent calls to my function cause the TaskCanceledException exception and I started to wonder how I could get rid of that. Here is my code:
private CancellationTokenSource? _cts;
private async void Update()
{
_cts?.Cancel();
_cts = new();
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1), _cts.Token)
.ContinueWith(o => Debug.WriteLine("Update now!"),
TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
}
I have found a workaround that works pretty nicely, but I would like to make the first idea work.
private CancellationTokenSource? _cts;
private CancellationTokenRegistration? _cancellationTokenRegistration;
private void Update()
{
_cancellationTokenRegistration?.Unregister();
_cts = new();
_cancellationTokenRegistration = _cts.Token.Register(() => Debug.WriteLine("Update now!"));
_cts.CancelAfter(1000);
}
You should consider using Microsoft's Reactive Framework (aka Rx) - NuGet System.Reactive and add using System.Reactive.Linq;.
You didn't say hat UI you're using, so for Windows Forms also add System.Reactive.Windows.Forms and for WPF System.Reactive.Windows.Threading.
Then you can do this:
Panel panel = new Panel(); // assuming this is a scrollable control
IObservable<EventPattern<ScrollEventArgs>> query =
Observable
.FromEventPattern<ScrollEventHandler, ScrollEventArgs>(
h => panel.Scroll += h,
h => panel.Scroll -= h)
.Select(sea => Observable.Timer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.0)).Select(_ => sea))
.Switch();
IDisposable subscription = query.Subscribe(sea => Console.WriteLine("Hello"));
The query is firing for every Scroll event and starts a one second timer. The Switch operator watches for every Timer produces and only connects to the latest one produced, thus ignoring the previous Scroll events.
And that's it.
After scrolling has a 1 second pause the word "Hello" is written to the console. If you begin scrolling again then after every further 1 second pause it fires again.
In my own experience I've dealt with lots of scenarios just like the one you describe, e.g. update something one second after the mouse stops moving etc.
For a long time I would do timer restarts just the way you describe, by cancelling an old task and starting a new one. But I never really liked how messy that was, so I came up with an alternative that I use in production code. Long-term it has proven quite reliable. It takes advantage of the captured context associated with a task. Multiple instances of TaskCanceledException no longer occur.
class WatchDogTimer
{
int _wdtCount = 0;
public TimeSpan Interval { get; set; } = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1);
public void Restart(Action onRanToCompletion)
{
_wdtCount++;
var capturedCount = _wdtCount;
Task
.Delay(Interval)
.GetAwaiter()
.OnCompleted(() =>
{
// If the 'captured' localCount has not changed after awaiting the Interval,
// it indicates that no new 'bones' have been thrown during that interval.
if (capturedCount.Equals(_wdtCount))
{
onRanToCompletion();
}
});
}
}
Another nice perk is that it doesn't rely on platform timers and works just as well in iOS/Android as it does in WinForms/WPF.
For purposes of demonstration, this can be exercised in a quick console demo where the MockUpdateView() action is sent to the WDT 10 times at 500 ms intervals. It will only execute one time, 500 ms after the last restart is received.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.Title = "Test WDT";
var wdt = new WatchDogTimer { Interval = TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500) };
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString());
// "Update view 500 ms after the last restart."
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
wdt.Restart(onRanToCompletion: ()=>MockUpdateView());
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500));
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void MockUpdateView()
{
Console.WriteLine($"Update now! WDT expired {DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString()}");
}
}
So, with 500 ms times 10 restarts this verifies one event at 5 seconds from the start.
You can combine a state variable and a delay to avoid messing with timers or task cancelation. This is far simpler IMO.
Add this state variable to your class/form:
private DateTime _nextRefresh = DateTime.MaxValue;
And here's how you refresh:
private async void Update()
{
await RefreshInOneSecond();
}
private async Task RefreshInOneSecond()
{
_nextRefresh = DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(1);
await Task.Delay(1000);
if (_nextRefresh <= DateTime.Now)
{
_nextRefresh = DateTime.MaxValue;
Refresh();
}
}
If you call RefreshInOneSecond repeatedly, it pushes out the _nextRefresh timestamp until later, so any refreshes already in flight will do nothing.
Demo on DotNetFiddle
One approach is to create a timer and reset this whenever the user does something. For example using System.Timers.Timer
timer = new Timer(1000);
timer.SynchronizingObject = myControl; // Needs a winforms object for synchronization
timer.Elapsed += OnElapsed;
timer.Start(); // Don't forget to stop the timer whenever you are done
...
private void OnUserUpdate(){
timer.Interval = 1000; // Setting the interval will reset the timer
}
There are multiple timers to chose from, I believe the same pattern is possible with the other timers. DispatchTimer might be most suitable if you use WPF.
Note that both System.Timers.Timer and Task.Delay uses System.Threading.Timer in the background. It is possible to use this directly, just call the .Change method to reset it. But be aware that this raises the event on a taskpool thread, so you need to provide your own synchronization.
I implemented the same scenario in a JavaScript application using Timer. I believe it's the same in the .NET world. Anyway handling this use-case when the user calls a method repeatedly with Task.Delay() will put more pressure on GC & thread pool
var timer = new Timer()
{
Enabled = true,
Interval = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5).TotalMilliseconds,
};
timer.Elapsed += (sender, eventArgs) =>
{
timer.Stop();
// do stuff
}
void OnKeyUp()
{
timer.Stop();
timer.Start();
}
I have 2 sets of jobs that need to be performed separately and can't run parallel. The jobs involve web communication so async is used.
Currently, I have System.Windows.Forms.Timers set up to execute the batches with Task.Run(). To avoid the possible simultaneous execution, first I thought I can simply use a lock() {} inside the timers' Tick (I update the UI with countdown at ticks). Then realized that I need to .Wait() for the task to finish, otherwise it just exits the critical section.
Then I realized that all of this is running on the UI thread, so it's like those Elmer Fudd scenes where he points his rifle in one hole and the end comes out another pointing back at him.
Is there a simple nail-hammer approach to not block the UI thread while maintaining mutually excluded execution?
Here's a sample for one of the timers:
_timer = new Timer { Interval = 1000 };
_timer.Tick += (sender, args) =>
{
var timeSpan = _nextRun - DateTime.Now;
if (timeSpan.Seconds >= 0)
{
UpdateCountdownMessage(string.Format("{0:00}:{1:00}:{2:00} to next run.", timeSpan.Hours, timeSpan.Minutes, timeSpan.Seconds));
}
else
{
lock (_runLock)
{
Task.Run(() => RunJobs(_batch1Jobs)).Wait();
}
}
};
To make it clearer, there is a 2nd timer, lets say it's called _timer2, that similarly updates a different countdown and runs _batch2Jobs when it reaches 0.
First you need to get rid of lock and switch to SemaphoreSlim
SemaphoreSlim _runLock = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
Then you can use something like this
_timer.Tick += async (sender, args) =>
{
var timeSpan = _nextRun - DateTime.Now;
if (timeSpan.Seconds >= 0)
{
UpdateCountdownMessage(string.Format("{0:00}:{1:00}:{2:00} to next run.", timeSpan.Hours, timeSpan.Minutes, timeSpan.Seconds));
}
else
{
_timer.Enabled = false;
try
{
await Task.Run(async () =>
{
await _runLock.WaitAsync();
try { RunJobs(_batch1Jobs); }
finally { _runLock.Release(); }
});
}
finally { _timer.Enabled = true; }
}
};
Please note that you should never use lock or Task.Wait on the UI thread for a long running tasks. The UI code should use only async/await constructs.
You should use tasks:
Task T1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {/*do work */});
Task T2 = T1.ContinueWith((antecedent) => {/*do work 2*/});
I want to run a process every one minute, but I have been told that the Timer is working every x minute + the time required for the process to finish. but I want the thread to work every 1 minute even though the thread process may keep working for 1 hour.
I hope you got me, so in the final image, I may have 10 threads working together.
is that possible ?
Depends on the timer. Simple test shows that System.Threading.Timer works the way you want:
var timer = new Timer(s => { "Start".Dump(); Thread.Sleep(10000); "Hi!".Dump(); },
null, 1000, 1000);
Thread.Sleep(20000);
timer.Dump();
The callback executes every second even though it takes ten seconds to execute.
This is basically because the callback for this particular timer is simply posted to the threadpool, while e.g. System.Windows.Forms.Timer is actually tied to the UI thread. Of course, if you simply start a new thread (or queue work, or start a new task etc.) in the callback of winforms timer, it will work in a similar (albeit less precise) way.
Using the right tool for the job usually makes things much easier :)
Create a Timer and on the elapse event just fire a new thread to do the work, like the below example:
public class Example
{
private static Timer aTimer;
public static void Main()
{
// Create a timer with a two second interval.
aTimer = new Timer(2000);
// Hook up the Elapsed event for the timer.
aTimer.Elapsed += OnTimedEvent;
aTimer.Enabled = true;
Console.WriteLine("Press the Enter key to exit the program... ");
Console.ReadLine();
Console.WriteLine("Terminating the application...");
}
public static void DoWork()
{
var workCounter = 0;
while (workCounter < 100)
{
Console.WriteLine("Alpha.Beta is running in its own thread." + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
workCounter++;
}
}
private static void OnTimedEvent(Object source, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
// Create the thread object, passing in the method
// via a delegate.
var oThread = new Thread(DoWork);
// Start the thread
oThread.Start();
}
}
Since .NET 4.0 Tasks are preferred to Threads.
The overhead of Task management is minimal.
// Create a task spawning a working task every 1000 msec
var t = Task.Run(async delegate
{
while (isRunning)
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
Task.Run(() =>
{
//your work
};
}
});
I have a C# program that needs to dispatch a thread every X minutes, but only if the previously dispatched thread (from X minutes) ago is not currently still running.
A plain old Timer alone will not work (because it dispatches an event every X minutes regardless or whether or not the previously dispatched process has finished yet).
The process that's going to get dispatched varies wildly in the time it takes to perform it's task - sometimes it might take a second, sometimes it might take several hours. I don't want to start the process again if it's still processing from the last time it was started.
Can anyone provide some working C# sample code?
In my opinion the way to go in this situation is to use System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker class and then simply check its IsBusy property each time you want to dispatch (or not) the new thread. The code is pretty simple; here's an example:
class MyClass
{
private BackgroundWorker worker;
public MyClass()
{
worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += worker_DoWork;
Timer timer = new Timer(1000);
timer.Elapsed += timer_Elapsed;
timer.Start();
}
void timer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if(!worker.IsBusy)
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void worker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
//whatever You want the background thread to do...
}
}
In this example I used System.Timers.Timer, but I believe it should also work with other timers. The BackgroundWorker class also supports progress reporting and cancellation, and uses event-driven model of communication with the dispatching thread, so you don't have to worry about volatile variables and the like...
EDIT
Here's more elaborate example including cancelling and progress reporting:
class MyClass
{
private BackgroundWorker worker;
public MyClass()
{
worker = new BackgroundWorker()
{
WorkerSupportsCancellation = true,
WorkerReportsProgress = true
};
worker.DoWork += worker_DoWork;
worker.ProgressChanged += worker_ProgressChanged;
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += worker_RunWorkerCompleted;
Timer timer = new Timer(1000);
timer.Elapsed += timer_Elapsed;
timer.Start();
}
void timer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if(!worker.IsBusy)
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void worker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker w = (BackgroundWorker)sender;
while(/*condition*/)
{
//check if cancellation was requested
if(w.CancellationPending)
{
//take any necessary action upon cancelling (rollback, etc.)
//notify the RunWorkerCompleted event handler
//that the operation was cancelled
e.Cancel = true;
return;
}
//report progress; this method has an overload which can also take
//custom object (usually representing state) as an argument
w.ReportProgress(/*percentage*/);
//do whatever You want the background thread to do...
}
}
void worker_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
//display the progress using e.ProgressPercentage and/or e.UserState
}
void worker_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if(e.Cancelled)
{
//do something
}
else
{
//do something else
}
}
}
Then, in order to cancel further execution simply call worker.CancelAsync(). Note that this is completely user-handled cancellation mechanism (it does not support thread aborting or anything like that out-of-the-box).
You can just maintain a volatile bool to achieve what you asked:
private volatile bool _executing;
private void TimerElapsed(object state)
{
if (_executing)
return;
_executing = true;
try
{
// do the real work here
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// handle your error
}
finally
{
_executing = false;
}
}
You can disable and enable your timer in its elapsed callback.
public void TimerElapsed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_timer.Stop();
//Do Work
_timer.Start();
}
You can just use the System.Threading.Timer and just set the Timeout to Infinite before you process your data/method, then when it completes restart the Timer ready for the next call.
private System.Threading.Timer _timerThread;
private int _period = 2000;
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
_timerThread = new System.Threading.Timer((o) =>
{
// Stop the timer;
_timerThread.Change(-1, -1);
// Process your data
ProcessData();
// start timer again (BeginTime, Interval)
_timerThread.Change(_period, _period);
}, null, 0, _period);
}
private void ProcessData()
{
// do stuff;
}
Using the PeriodicTaskFactory from my post here
CancellationTokenSource cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task task = PeriodicTaskFactory.Start(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now);
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}, intervalInMilliseconds: 1000, synchronous: true, cancelToken: cancellationTokenSource.Token);
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to stop iterations...");
Console.ReadKey(true);
cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for the task to complete...");
Task.WaitAny(task);
The output below shows that even though the interval is set 1000 milliseconds, each iteration doesn't start until the work of the task action is complete. This is accomplished using the synchronous: true optional parameter.
Press any key to stop iterations...
9/6/2013 1:01:52 PM
9/6/2013 1:01:58 PM
9/6/2013 1:02:04 PM
9/6/2013 1:02:10 PM
9/6/2013 1:02:16 PM
Waiting for the task to complete...
Press any key to continue . . .
UPDATE
If you want the "skipped event" behavior with the PeriodicTaskFactory simply don't use the synchronous option and implement the Monitor.TryEnter like what Bob did here https://stackoverflow.com/a/18665948/222434
Task task = PeriodicTaskFactory.Start(() =>
{
if (!Monitor.TryEnter(_locker)) { return; } // Don't let multiple threads in here at the same time.
try
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now);
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_locker);
}
}, intervalInMilliseconds: 1000, synchronous: false, cancelToken: cancellationTokenSource.Token);
The nice thing about the PeriodicTaskFactory is that a Task is returned that can be used with all the TPL API, e.g. Task.Wait, continuations, etc.
This question already has a number of good answers, including a slightly newer one that is based on some of the features in the TPL. But I feel a lack here:
The TPL-based solution a) isn't really contained wholly here, but rather refers to another answer, b) doesn't show how one could use async/await to implement the timing mechanism in a single method, and c) the referenced implementation is fairly complicated, which somewhat obfuscates the underlying relevant point to this particular question.
The original question here is somewhat vague on the specific parameters of the desired implementation (though some of that is clarified in comments). At the same time, other readers may have similar but not identical needs, and no one answer addresses the variety of design options that might be desired.
I particularly like implementing periodic behavior using Task and async/await this way, because of the way it simplifies the code. The async/await feature in particular is so valuable in taking code that would otherwise be fractured by a continuation/callback implementation detail, and preserving its natural, linear logic in a single method. But no answer here demonstrates that simplicity.
So, with that rationale motivating me to add yet another answer to this question…
To me, the first thing to consider is "what exact behavior is desired here?" The question here starts with a basic premise: that the period task initiated by the timer should not run concurrently, even if the task takes longer than the timer period. But there are multiple ways that premise can be fulfilled, including:
Don't even run the timer while the task is running.
Run the timer (this and the remaining options I'm presenting here all assume the timer continues to run during the execution of the task), but if the task takes longer than the timer period, run the task again immediately after it's completed from the previous timer tick.
Only ever initiate execution of the task on a timer tick. If the task takes longer than the timer period, don't start a new task while the current one is executed, and even once the current one has completed, don't start a new one until the next timer tick.
If the task takes longer than the timer interval, not only run the task again immediately after it's completed, but run it as many times as necessary until the task has "caught up". I.e. over time, make a best effort to execute the task once for every timer tick.
Based on the comments, I have the impression that the #3 option most closely matches the OP's original request, though it sounds like the #1 option possibly would work too. But options #2 and #4 might be preferable to someone else.
In the following code example, I have implemented these options with five different methods (two of them implement option #3, but in slightly different ways). Of course, one would select the appropriate implementation for one's needs. You likely don't need all five in one program! :)
The key point is that in all of these implementations, they naturally and in a very simple way, execute the task in a period-but-non-concurrent way. That is, they effectively implement a timer-based execution model, while ensuring that the task is only ever being executed by one thread at a time, per the primary request of the question.
This example also illustrates how CancellationTokenSource can be used to interrupt the period task, taking advantage of await to handle the exception-based model in a clean, simple way.
class Program
{
const int timerSeconds = 5, actionMinSeconds = 1, actionMaxSeconds = 7;
static Random _rnd = new Random();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to interrupt timer and exit...");
Console.WriteLine();
CancellationTokenSource cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
new Thread(() => CancelOnInput(cancelSource)).Start();
Console.WriteLine(
"Starting at {0:HH:mm:ss.f}, timer interval is {1} seconds",
DateTime.Now, timerSeconds);
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine();
// NOTE: the call to Wait() is for the purpose of this
// specific demonstration in a console program. One does
// not normally use a blocking wait like this for asynchronous
// operations.
// Specify the specific implementation to test by providing the method
// name as the second argument.
RunTimer(cancelSource.Token, M1).Wait();
}
static async Task RunTimer(
CancellationToken cancelToken, Func<Action, TimeSpan, Task> timerMethod)
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing method {0}()", timerMethod.Method.Name);
Console.WriteLine();
try
{
await timerMethod(() =>
{
cancelToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DummyAction();
}, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(timerSeconds));
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Operation cancelled");
}
}
static void CancelOnInput(CancellationTokenSource cancelSource)
{
Console.ReadKey();
cancelSource.Cancel();
}
static void DummyAction()
{
int duration = _rnd.Next(actionMinSeconds, actionMaxSeconds + 1);
Console.WriteLine("dummy action: {0} seconds", duration);
Console.Write(" start: {0:HH:mm:ss.f}", DateTime.Now);
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(duration));
Console.WriteLine(" - end: {0:HH:mm:ss.f}", DateTime.Now);
}
static async Task M1(Action taskAction, TimeSpan timer)
{
// Most basic: always wait specified duration between
// each execution of taskAction
while (true)
{
await Task.Delay(timer);
await Task.Run(() => taskAction());
}
}
static async Task M2(Action taskAction, TimeSpan timer)
{
// Simple: wait for specified interval, minus the duration of
// the execution of taskAction. Run taskAction immediately if
// the previous execution too longer than timer.
TimeSpan remainingDelay = timer;
while (true)
{
if (remainingDelay > TimeSpan.Zero)
{
await Task.Delay(remainingDelay);
}
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
await Task.Run(() => taskAction());
remainingDelay = timer - sw.Elapsed;
}
}
static async Task M3a(Action taskAction, TimeSpan timer)
{
// More complicated: only start action on time intervals that
// are multiples of the specified timer interval. If execution
// of taskAction takes longer than the specified timer interval,
// wait until next multiple.
// NOTE: this implementation may drift over time relative to the
// initial start time, as it considers only the time for the executed
// action and there is a small amount of overhead in the loop. See
// M3b() for an implementation that always executes on multiples of
// the interval relative to the original start time.
TimeSpan remainingDelay = timer;
while (true)
{
await Task.Delay(remainingDelay);
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
await Task.Run(() => taskAction());
long remainder = sw.Elapsed.Ticks % timer.Ticks;
remainingDelay = TimeSpan.FromTicks(timer.Ticks - remainder);
}
}
static async Task M3b(Action taskAction, TimeSpan timer)
{
// More complicated: only start action on time intervals that
// are multiples of the specified timer interval. If execution
// of taskAction takes longer than the specified timer interval,
// wait until next multiple.
// NOTE: this implementation computes the intervals based on the
// original start time of the loop, and thus will not drift over
// time (not counting any drift that exists in the computer's clock
// itself).
TimeSpan remainingDelay = timer;
Stopwatch swTotal = Stopwatch.StartNew();
while (true)
{
await Task.Delay(remainingDelay);
await Task.Run(() => taskAction());
long remainder = swTotal.Elapsed.Ticks % timer.Ticks;
remainingDelay = TimeSpan.FromTicks(timer.Ticks - remainder);
}
}
static async Task M4(Action taskAction, TimeSpan timer)
{
// More complicated: this implementation is very different from
// the others, in that while each execution of the task action
// is serialized, they are effectively queued. In all of the others,
// if the task is executing when a timer tick would have happened,
// the execution for that tick is simply ignored. But here, each time
// the timer would have ticked, the task action will be executed.
//
// If the task action takes longer than the timer for an extended
// period of time, it will repeatedly execute. If and when it
// "catches up" (which it can do only if it then eventually
// executes more quickly than the timer period for some number
// of iterations), it reverts to the "execute on a fixed
// interval" behavior.
TimeSpan nextTick = timer;
Stopwatch swTotal = Stopwatch.StartNew();
while (true)
{
TimeSpan remainingDelay = nextTick - swTotal.Elapsed;
if (remainingDelay > TimeSpan.Zero)
{
await Task.Delay(remainingDelay);
}
await Task.Run(() => taskAction());
nextTick += timer;
}
}
}
One final note: I came across this Q&A after following it as a duplicate of another question. In that other question, unlike here, the OP had specifically noted they were using the System.Windows.Forms.Timer class. Of course, this class is used mainly because it has the nice feature that the Tick event is raised in the UI thread.
Now, both it and this question involve a task that is actually executed in a background thread, so the UI-thread-affinitied behavior of that timer class isn't really of particular use in those scenarios. The code here is implemented to match that "start a background task" paradigm, but it can easily be changed so that the taskAction delegate is simply invoked directly, rather than being run in a Task and awaited. The nice thing about using async/await, in addition to the structural advantage I noted above, is that it preserves the thread-affinitied behavior that is desirable from the System.Windows.Forms.Timer class.
You can stop timer before the task and start it again after task completion this can make your take perform periodiacally on even interval of time.
public void myTimer_Elapsed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
myTimer.Stop();
// Do something you want here.
myTimer.Start();
}
If you want the timer's callback to fire on a background thread, you could use a System.Threading.Timer. This Timer class allows you to "Specify Timeout.Infinite to disable periodic signaling." as part of the constructor, which causes the timer to fire only a single time.
You can then construct a new timer when your first timer's callback fires and completes, preventing multiple timers from being scheduled until you are ready for them to occur.
The advantage here is you don't create timers, then cancel them repeatedly, as you're never scheduling more than your "next event" at a time.
There are at least 20 different ways to accomplish this, from using a timer and a semaphore, to volatile variables, to using the TPL, to using an opensource scheduling tool like Quartz etc al.
Creating a thread is an expensive exercise, so why not just create ONE and leave it running in the background, since it will spend the majority of its time IDLE, it causes no real drain on the system. Wake up periodically and do work, then go back to sleep for the time period. No matter how long the task takes, you will always wait at least the "waitForWork" timespan after completing before starting a new one.
//wait 5 seconds for testing purposes
static TimeSpan waitForWork = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 5, 0);
static ManualResetEventSlim shutdownEvent = new ManualResetEventSlim(false);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
System.Threading.Thread thread = new Thread(DoWork);
thread.Name = "My Worker Thread, Dude";
thread.Start();
Console.ReadLine();
shutdownEvent.Set();
thread.Join();
}
public static void DoWork()
{
do
{
//wait for work timeout or shudown event notification
shutdownEvent.Wait(waitForWork);
//if shutting down, exit the thread
if(shutdownEvent.IsSet)
return;
//TODO: Do Work here
} while (true);
}
You can use System.Threading.Timer. Trick is to set the initial time only. Initial time is set again when previous interval is finished or when job is finished (this will happen when job is taking longer then the interval). Here is the sample code.
class Program
{
static System.Threading.Timer timer;
static bool workAvailable = false;
static int timeInMs = 5000;
static object o = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
timer = new Timer((o) =>
{
try
{
if (workAvailable)
{
// do the work, whatever is required.
// if another thread is started use Thread.Join to wait for the thread to finish
}
}
catch (Exception)
{
// handle
}
finally
{
// only set the initial time, do not set the recurring time
timer.Change(timeInMs, Timeout.Infinite);
}
});
// only set the initial time, do not set the recurring time
timer.Change(timeInMs, Timeout.Infinite);
}
Why not use a timer with Monitor.TryEnter()? If OnTimerElapsed() is called again before the previous thread finishes, it will just be discarded and another attempt won't happen again until the timer fires again.
private static readonly object _locker = new object();
private void OnTimerElapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if (!Monitor.TryEnter(_locker)) { return; } // Don't let multiple threads in here at the same time.
try
{
// do stuff
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_locker);
}
}
I had the same problem some time ago and all I had done was using the lock{} statement. With this, even if the Timer wants to do anything, he is forced to wait, until the end of the lock-Block.
i.e.
lock
{
// this code will never be interrupted or started again until it has finished
}
This is a great way to be sure, your process will work until the end without interrupting.
If I understand you correctly, you actually just want to ensure your thread is not running before you dispatch another thread. Let's say you have a thread defined in your class like so.
private System.Threading.Thread myThread;
You can do:
//inside some executed method
System.Threading.Timer t = new System.Threading.Timer(timerCallBackMethod, null, 0, 5000);
then add the callBack like so
private void timerCallBackMethod(object state)
{
if(myThread.ThreadState == System.Threading.ThreadState.Stopped || myThread.ThreadState == System.Threading.ThreadState.Unstarted)
{
//dispatch new thread
}
}
This should do what you want. It executes a thread, then joins the thread until it has finished. Goes into a timer loop to make sure it is not executing a thread prematurely, then goes off again and executes.
using System.Threading;
public class MyThread
{
public void ThreadFunc()
{
// do nothing apart from sleep a bit
System.Console.WriteLine("In Timer Function!");
Thread.Sleep(new TimeSpan(0, 0, 5));
}
};
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
bool bExit = false;
DateTime tmeLastExecuted;
// while we don't have a condition to exit the thread loop
while (!bExit)
{
// create a new instance of our thread class and ThreadStart paramter
MyThread myThreadClass = new MyThread();
Thread newThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(myThreadClass.ThreadFunc));
// just as well join the thread until it exits
tmeLastExecuted = DateTime.Now; // update timing flag
newThread.Start();
newThread.Join();
// when we are in the timing threshold to execute a new thread, we can exit
// this loop
System.Console.WriteLine("Sleeping for a bit!");
// only allowed to execute a thread every 10 seconds minimum
while (DateTime.Now - tmeLastExecuted < new TimeSpan(0, 0, 10));
{
Thread.Sleep(100); // sleep to make sure program has no tight loops
}
System.Console.WriteLine("Ok, going in for another thread creation!");
}
}
}
Should produce something like:
In Timer Function!
Sleeping for a bit!
Ok, going in for another thread creation!
In Timer Function!
Sleeping for a bit!
Ok, going in for another thread creation!
In Timer Function!
...
...
Hope this helps!
SR
The guts of this is the ExecuteTaskCallback method. This bit is charged with doing some work, but only if it is not already doing so. For this I have used a ManualResetEvent (canExecute) that is initially set to be signalled in the StartTaskCallbacks method.
Note the way I use canExecute.WaitOne(0). The zero means that WaitOne will return immediately with the state of the WaitHandle (MSDN). If the zero is omitted, you would end up with every call to ExecuteTaskCallback eventually running the task, which could be fairly disastrous.
The other important thing is to be able to end processing cleanly. I have chosen to prevent the Timer from executing any further methods in StopTaskCallbacks because it seems preferable to do so while other work may be ongoing. This ensures that both no new work will be undertaken, and that the subsequent call to canExecute.WaitOne(); will indeed cover the last task if there is one.
private static void ExecuteTaskCallback(object state)
{
ManualResetEvent canExecute = (ManualResetEvent)state;
if (canExecute.WaitOne(0))
{
canExecute.Reset();
Console.WriteLine("Doing some work...");
//Simulate doing work.
Thread.Sleep(3000);
Console.WriteLine("...work completed");
canExecute.Set();
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Returning as method is already running");
}
}
private static void StartTaskCallbacks()
{
ManualResetEvent canExecute = new ManualResetEvent(true),
stopRunning = new ManualResetEvent(false);
int interval = 1000;
//Periodic invocations. Begins immediately.
Timer timer = new Timer(ExecuteTaskCallback, canExecute, 0, interval);
//Simulate being stopped.
Timer stopTimer = new Timer(StopTaskCallbacks, new object[]
{
canExecute, stopRunning, timer
}, 10000, Timeout.Infinite);
stopRunning.WaitOne();
//Clean up.
timer.Dispose();
stopTimer.Dispose();
}
private static void StopTaskCallbacks(object state)
{
object[] stateArray = (object[])state;
ManualResetEvent canExecute = (ManualResetEvent)stateArray[0];
ManualResetEvent stopRunning = (ManualResetEvent)stateArray[1];
Timer timer = (Timer)stateArray[2];
//Stop the periodic invocations.
timer.Change(Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for existing work to complete");
canExecute.WaitOne();
stopRunning.Set();
}
I recommend to use Timer instead of thread, as it's lighter object. To achieve your goal you can do following.
using System.Timers;
namespace sample_code_1
{
public class ClassName
{
Timer myTimer;
static volatile bool isRunning;
public OnboardingTaskService()
{
myTimer= new Timer();
myTimer.Interval = 60000;
myTimer.Elapsed += myTimer_Elapsed;
myTimer.Start();
}
private void myTimer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if (isRunning) return;
isRunning = true;
try
{
//Your Code....
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle Exception
}
finally { isRunning = false; }
}
}
}
Let me know if it helps.
I'm developing a C# operation and I would like to show a modal progress dialog, but only when an operation will be long (for example, more than 3 seconds). I execute my operations in a background thread.
The problem is that I don't know in advance whether the operation will be long or short.
Some software as IntelliJ has a timer aproach. If the operation takes more than x time, then show a dialog then.
What do you think that is a good pattern to implement this?
Wait the UI thread with a timer, and show dialog there?
Must I DoEvents() when I show the dialog?
Here's what I'd do:
1) Use a BackgroundWorker.
2) In before you call the method RunWorkerAsync, store the current time in a variable.
3) In the DoWork event, you'll need to call ReportProgress. In the ProgressChanged event, check to see if the time has elapsed greater than three seconds. If so, show dialog.
Here is a MSDN example for the BackgroundWorker: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=vs.95).aspx
Note: In general, I agree with Ramhound's comment. Just always display the progress. But if you're not using BackgroundWorker, I would start using it. It'll make your life easier.
I will go with the first choice here with some modifications:
First run the possible long running operation in different thread.
Then run a different thread to check the first one status by a wait handle with timeout to wait it for finish. if the time out triggers there show the progress bar.
Something like:
private ManualResetEvent _finishLoadingNotifier = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private const int ShowProgressTimeOut = 1000 * 3;//3 seconds
private void YourLongOperation()
{
....
_finishLoadingNotifier.Set();//after finish your work
}
private void StartProgressIfNeededThread()
{
int result = WaitHandle.WaitAny(new WaitHandle[] { _finishLoadingNotifier }, ShowProgressTimeOut);
if (result > 1)
{
//show the progress bar.
}
}
Assuming you have a DoPossiblyLongOperation(), ShowProgressDialog() and HideProgressDialog() methods, you could use the TPL to do the heavy lifting for you:
var longOperation = new Task(DoPossiblyLongOperation).ContinueWith(() => myProgressDialog.Invoke(new Action(HideProgressDialog)));
if (Task.WaitAny(longOperation, new Task(() => Thread.Sleep(3000))) == 1)
ShowProgressDialog();
I would keep the progress dialog separate from the background activity, to separate my UI logic from the rest of the application. So the sequence would be (This is essentially the same as what IntelliJ does):
UI starts the background operation (in a BackgroundWorker) and set up a timer for X seconds
When the timer expires UI shows the progress dialog (if the background task is still running)
When the background task completes the timer is cancelled and the dialog (if any) is closed
Using a timer instead of a separate thread is more resource-efficient.
Recommended non-blocking solution and no new Threads:
try
{
var t = DoLongProcessAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(t, Task.Delay(1000)) != t) ShowProgress();
await t;
}
finally
{
HideProgress();
}
I got the idea from Jalal Said answer. I required the need to timeout or cancel the progress display. Instead of passing an additional parameter (cancellation token handle) to the WaitAny I changed the design to depend on Task.Delay()
private const int ShowProgressTimeOut = 750;//750 ms seconds
public static void Report(CancellationTokenSource cts)
{
Task.Run(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(ShowProgressTimeOut);
if (!cts.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// Report progress
}
});
}
Use it like so;
private async Task YourLongOperation()
{
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
try
{
// Long running task on background thread
await Task.Run(() => {
Report(cts);
// Do work
cts.Cancel();
});
}
catch (Exception ex) { }
finally {cts.Cancel();}
}