Develop Reference

How To: stagger SignalR Clients.Others.[function] calls in C#

I have a basic function that looks like this:
public void AllDataUpdated()
{
Clients.Others.allDataUpdated();
}
Now, I want to add a half-second delay between each of these calls. But, I don't want to just lock my web-server up in doing so.
My first instinct was to do the following:
async Task SendWithDelay(var other, var timeout)
{
await Task.Delay(timeout);
other.allDataUpdated();
}
and iterate over each other in my public void AllDataUpdated() function and increment the timeout for each iteration. Is this the correct approach? How should I do this in a manner that will not lock-up my webserver with this process, but will stagger the SignalR emits?
Thanks!
EDIT: My desired result is that client_0 gets this message at 0ms, then client_1 gets the message at 500ms, etc. All from the same call to AllDataUpdated().

// synchronization primitive
private readonly object syncRoot = new object();
// the timer for 500 miliseconds delay
private Timer notificator;
// public function used for notification with delay
public void NotifyAllDataUpdatedWithDelay() {
// first, we need claim lock, because of accessing from multiple threads
lock(this.syncRoot) {
if (null == notificator) {
// notification timer is lazy-loaded
notificator = new Timer(500);
notificator.Elapse += notificator_Elapsed;
}
if (false == notificator.Enabled) {
// timer is not enabled (=no notification is in delay)
// enabling = starting the timer
notificator.Enabled = true;
}
}
}
private void notificator_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e) {
// first, we need claim lock, because of accessing from multiple threads
lock(this.syncRoot) {
// stop the notificator
notificator.Enabled = false;
}
// notify clients
Clients.Others.allDataUpdated();
}

Calling a method after set amount of time and/or aborting thread issues

So I've got an application that employs a filesystemWatcher and triggers an event just fine. The FSW will trigger a bunch of times pretty close together. I want to create a function that triggers say an hour after the last time the FSW was triggered.
I first tried using a backgroundworker: (All code is shortened for clarity)
namespace Devo
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker();
private void fileSystemWatcher_Created(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
if (bw.IsBusy)
{
bw.CancelAsync(); //this is to, in a way, reset the timer for the delayed method.
}
//do a lot of stuff
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void backgroundWorker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
while(sw.ElapsedMilliseconds < 180000)
{
if (bw.CancellationPending == true)
{
sw.Stop();
sw.Reset();
e.Cancel = true;
return;
}
}
sw.Stop();
sw.Reset();
DelayedMethod();
}
}
}
This didn't work as the second time bw.RunWorkerAsync() was called it was apparently busy, even though the call to bw.CancelAsync().
My next attempt involved a regular thread as I read somewhere on SO (can't find the link now) that one could not "restart" a backgroundWorker as I am trying to do.
The thread attemp is nearly identical but I thought I'd try in since there might be some constraints within the backgroundWorker that is not present in a regular thread. I thought.
namespace Devo
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
Thread PWC_counter_thread = new Thread(PWC_Counter);
private void fileSystemWatcher_Created(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
if (PWC_counter_thread.IsAlive)
PWC_counter_thread.Abort();
//do a lot of stuff
PWC_counter_thread.Start();
}
static void PWC_Counter()
{
Thread.Sleep(180000);
DelayedMethod();
}
}
}
But this gave me the same error. On the second call to PWC_counter_thread.Start() is was busy.
I'm assuming that a race condition is not present as the second thread waits for, in this example, 3 minutes, and the initial FSW method takes a good full second to execute, therefore I believe that the call to .Abort() and .CancelAsync() both are done before their respective methods are completed.
Now for the questions:
Is it possible to restart a thread in the fashion I am trying? If so, what am I doing wrong?
Should I delay my method call in another way? If so, tips?
EDIT/UPDATE/SOLUTION
I never got starting and stopping a thread to work as I wanted so I found another solution to my situation.
The situation was that I had a second thread that worked as a sort of timer where it would call a method after a set amount of time. My first thread did some work and upon finishing it would start the second thread. If the first thread got fired up again before the timer-thread had finished it was supposed to kill the thread and restart it.
This proved, for me, to be difficult to get the way I wanted. So I instead took another approach towards my wanted end result. Instead of restarting the thread I simply restarted the stopwatch that my second thread was using as a counter. This gave me the result I wanted. It's probably bad practice but it works.

In your BackgroundWorker example you probably have an issue with racing. CancelAsync(), as its name implies, is an asynchronious call, meaning that BackgroundWorker does not stop working immediately and it might still work when try to restart it. To avoid that, you should subscribe to RunWorkerCompleted event and wait for it to fire before calling bw.RunWorkerAsync(); again. For example:
public Form1()
{
bw = new BackgroundWorker();
bw.RunWorkerCompleted += OnCompleted;
}
private BackgroundWorker bw;
private ManualResetEvent completed = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private void OnCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
completed.Set();
}
private void fileSystemWatcher_Created(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
if (bw.IsBusy)
{
bw.CancelAsync();
completed.WaitOne();
}
//do a lot of stuff
completed.Reset();
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
You have multiple issues with your Thread-based example.
You should never call Thread.Abort(). Instead, you should implement a cancellation mechanism, similar to that of BackgroundWorker. Make a bool field (_isCancelled or something) and check it periodically in thread delegate.
You can not reuse a Thread object. You should always create a new one.

You would be best off encapsulating this in a class, and use a System.Threading.Timer to detect the inactivity.
Here's an example I put together. The idea is that you create an InactivityDetector with the appropriate inactivity threshold (an hour in your case) and a callback method that will be called when that period of inactivity is exceeded.
You have to call InactivityDetector.RegisterActivity() whenever activity is detected (e.g. in your case a file creation is detected).
Once the inactivity callback has been issued, it will not be called again until RegisterActivity() has been called again (this prevents multiple callbacks for the same period of extended inactivity).
Your code would pass DelayedMethod for the inactivity Action delegate.
Note that the callback is on a separate thread!
(Also note that I didn't put in any parameter validation, to keep the code shorter.)
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
sealed class Program
{
void test()
{
using (var inactivityDetector = new InactivityDetector(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2), inactivityDetected))
{
for (int loop = 0; loop < 3; ++loop)
{
Console.WriteLine("Keeping busy once a second for 5 seconds.");
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Registering activity");
inactivityDetector.RegisterActivity();
}
Console.WriteLine("Entering 3 second inactivity");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
inactivityDetector.RegisterActivity();
}
}
}
static void inactivityDetected()
{
Console.WriteLine("Inactivity detected.");
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Program().test();
}
}
public sealed class InactivityDetector: IDisposable
{
public InactivityDetector(TimeSpan inactivityThreshold, Action onInactivity)
{
_inactivityThreshold = inactivityThreshold;
_onInactivity = onInactivity;
_timer = new Timer(timerCallback, null, (int)inactivityThreshold.TotalMilliseconds, -1);
}
public void RegisterActivity()
{
_timer.Change(-1, -1);
_timer.Change((int)_inactivityThreshold.TotalMilliseconds, -1);
}
private void timerCallback(object state)
{
_timer.Change(-1, -1);
_onInactivity();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_timer.Dispose();
}
private readonly TimeSpan _inactivityThreshold;
private readonly Action _onInactivity;
private readonly Timer _timer;
}
}

C# run a thread every X minutes, but only if that thread is not running already

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.

Windows service with FileSystemWatcher and Timer - making sure everything gets disposed

I have created a C# Windows Service application that starts a FileSystemWatcher to monitor a directory for the creation of a file. When the file is found I instantiate a custom class that parses the file (CSV) and calls a web service with it's contents. The service is somewhat asynchronous and returns a unique number which must be used for subsequent calls to check its progress. In my process class I create a timer to continually check to see if the job is finished. I am disposeing and closeing my timer when I am done with it but I just want to make sure my class will be garbage collected and I will not have any memory leaks.
The code looks like this (snipped for brevity):
My main service class:
protected override void OnStart(string[] args)
{
FileSystemWatcher watcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
watcher.Path = "path";
watcher.Filter = "file";
watcher.Created += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Created);
watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
static void watcher_Created(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
FileProcessor p = new FileProcessor();
p.Process(e.FullPath);
//Will this instance of p stick around until the timer within it is finished?
}
FileProcessor.cs
class FileProcessor
{
private System.Timers.Timer timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
private string id;
public FileProcessor()
{
timer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(OnTimer);
timer.Enabled = false;
timer.AutoReset = true;
}
public void Process(string filename)
{
//Read file <snipped>
//Call web service and get id
id = CallWebService();
//Create a timer for 10 seconds and start it
timer.Interval = 10000;
timer.Enabled = true;
}
private bool IsFinished(string id)
{
//Call web service to see if job is finished, true if finished
//<snipped>
}
private void ProcessResults()
{
//Job is finished, process results
//Call cleanup method to dispose of timer
Cleanup();
}
private void OnTimer(object source, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if (!IsFinished(id))
{
//Keep timer running, check result again next timer event
return;
}
else
{
//Stop timer
timer.Stop();
//Process Results
ProcessResults(response);
}
}
private void Cleanup()
{
timer.Close();
timer.Dispose();
}
}
My question is should my instance of "p" stick around (not be GC'ed) until my timer is destroyed? Will it ever be destroyed? Does my FileProcessor class need to implement IDisposable so I can wrap it in a using block? I am not worried about this being single threaded because I only expect it to process one file per day and it should not take more than 10 minutes for the process to finish and return to watching for the next file to be created.

You are on the right track. FileSystemWatcher implements the Component class, which requires you to dispose it after use. Since this is the case, the correct approach would be to have your FileProcessor class implement IDisposable as you suggested.
Since you are going to have the FileProcessor object live for an extended period of time, you will not be able to use a using statement. This is because the object would attempt to get disposed before it was done with its work.
This being the case, I would implement an event on the FileProcessor to notify the consumer when processing is complete. When this is complete I would call the Dispose method on the FileProcessor object. The Dispose method should perform all cleanup required for that object - IE: timer, watcher, etc.
For your reference, this is a good article which lays out some guidelines for when and how to use the IDisposable interface. Also, as a good practice, you will want to wrap the calls in the consumer in try/catch blocks - you need to ensure that no matter what happens, you attempt to free the resources.

Task with Timer crashing a program

I've a little program, that parses all the log files created by another program, and locked by it ( so, no way I can edit or delete those files) . The program runs just fine, and I do it starting a new Task every 10 seconds:
System.Timers.Timer aTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
aTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(OnTimedEvent);
aTimer.Interval = 10000;
aTimer.Start();
}
private void OnTimedEvent(object source, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
var t = Task<int>.Factory.StartNew(() => convert());
}
the only problem arises when there are too many log files : if a new Task is started before the end of the previous one, the program crashes.
So, any idea on how to solve this behaviour, or better solutions to the problem?

You could use the lock() statement to lock on an object variable. On the other hand, you might run into thread deadlocks if the parsing of the log files consistently takes longer than the timer interval.
In your OnTimedEvent() function, I would check a boolean member variable that skips the parsing if you are already performing a parse. For example:
public class MyTimerClass
{
private bool isParsing;
// Other methods here which initiate the log file parsing.
private void OnTimedEvent(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if (!isParsing)
{
isParsing = true;
ParseLogFiles();
isParsing = false;
}
}
}

The simple solution would be to wait until the previous task is completed.
Write an event that sends a callback when the file is done being parsed.
This is the best I can do with the code provided.

Have you tried to use lock statement inside OnTimeEvent?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/c5kehkcz(v=VS.100).aspx

You could create a static boolean variable called IsRunning and set it to true when you are moving the logs, before you start moving the logs just check if IsRunning is set to true.
private static bool IsRunning = false;
public void MoveLogs()
{
if (!IsRunning)
{
IsRunning = true;
//Copy log files
IsRunning = false;
}
}

In the current accepted answer there is still the possibility of a race condition in a multi-threaded situation. However unlikely in your case because of the interval, another more threading appropriate solution is to use Monitor.TryEnter
public class MyTimerClass
{
private object _syncObject = new object();
// Other methods here which initiate the log file parsing.
private void OnTimedEvent(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if (Monitor.TryEnter(_syncObject) )
{
try
{
ParseLogFiles();
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_syncObject);
}
}
}
}
I believe this is cleaner and gets you in the habit of using the proper thread synchronization mechanism in the framework.