Develop Reference

Parallel queued background tasks with hosted services in ASP.NET Core

I'm doing some tests with the new Background tasks with hosted services in ASP.NET Core feature present in version 2.1, more specifically with Queued background tasks, and a question about parallelism came to my mind.
I'm currently following strictly the tutorial provided by Microsoft and when trying to simulate a workload with several requests being made from a same user to enqueue tasks I noticed that all workItems are executed in order, so no parallelism.
My question is, is this behavior expected? And if so, in order to make the request execution parallel is it ok to fire and forget, instead of waiting the workItem to complete?
I've searched for a couple of days about this specific scenario without luck, so if anyone has any guide or examples to provide, I would be really glad.
Edit: The code from the tutorial is quite long, so the link for it is https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/host/hosted-services?view=aspnetcore-2.1#queued-background-tasks
The method which executes the work item is this:
public class QueuedHostedService : IHostedService
{
...
public Task StartAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
_logger.LogInformation("Queued Hosted Service is starting.");
_backgroundTask = Task.Run(BackgroundProceessing);
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
private async Task BackgroundProceessing()
{
while (!_shutdown.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var workItem =
await TaskQueue.DequeueAsync(_shutdown.Token);
try
{
await workItem(_shutdown.Token);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.LogError(ex,
$"Error occurred executing {nameof(workItem)}.");
}
}
}
...
}
The main point of the question is to know if anyone out there could share the knowledge of how to use this specific technology to execute several work items at the same time, since a server can handle this workload.
I tried the fire and forget method when executing the work item and it worked the way I intended it to, several tasks executing in parallel at the same time, I 'm jut no sure if this is an ok practice, or if there is a better or proper way of handling this situation.

The code you posted executes the queued items in order, one at a time but also in parallel to the web server. An IHostedService is running per definition in parallel to the web server. This article provides a good overview.
Consider the following example:
_logger.LogInformation ("Before()");
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
var j = i;
_backgroundTaskQueue.QueueBackgroundWorkItem (async token =>
{
var random = new Random();
await Task.Delay (random.Next (50, 1000), token);
_logger.LogInformation ($"Event {j}");
});
}
_logger.LogInformation ("After()");
We add ten tasks which will wait a random amount of time. If you put the code in a controller method the events will still be logged even after controller method returns. But each item will be executed in order so that the output looks like this:
Event 1
Event 2
...
Event 9
Event 10
In order to introduce parallelism we have to change the implementation of the BackgroundProceessing method in the QueuedHostedService.
Here is an example implementation that allows two Tasks to be executed in parallel:
private async Task BackgroundProceessing()
{
var semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim (2);
void HandleTask(Task task)
{
semaphore.Release();
}
while (!_shutdown.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await semaphore.WaitAsync();
var item = await TaskQueue.DequeueAsync(_shutdown.Token);
var task = item (_shutdown.Token);
task.ContinueWith (HandleTask);
}
}
Using this implementation the order of the events logged in no longer in order as each task waits a random amount of time. So the output could be:
Event 0
Event 1
Event 2
Event 3
Event 4
Event 5
Event 7
Event 6
Event 9
Event 8
edit: Is it ok in a production environment to execute code this way, without awaiting it?
I think the reason why most devs have a problem with fire-and-forget is that it is often misused.
When you execute a Task using fire-and-forget you are basically telling me that you do not care about the result of this function. You do not care if it exits successfully, if it is canceled or if it threw an exception. But for most Tasks you do care about the result.
You do want to make sure a database write went through
You do want to make sure a Log entry is written to the hard drive
You do want to make sure a network packet is sent to the receiver
And if you care about the result of the Task then fire-and-forget is the wrong method.
That's it in my opinion. The hard part is finding a Task where you really do not care about the result of the Task.

You can add the QueuedHostedService once or twice for every CPU in the machine.
So something like this:
for (var i=0;i<Environment.ProcessorCount;++i)
{
services.AddHostedService<QueuedHostedService>();
}
You can hide this in an extension method and make the concurrency level configurable to keep things clean.

C# Thread.Sleep()

I need somehow to bypass Thread.Sleep() method and don't get my UI Thread blocked, but I don't have to delete the method.
I need to solve the problem without deleting the Sleep method. The Sleep method simulates a delay(unresponsive application). I need to handle that.

An application is considered non-responsive when it doesn't pump its message queue. The message queue in Winforms is pumped on the GUI thread. Therefore, to make your application "responsive", you need to make sure the GUI thread has opportunities to pump the message queue - in other words, it must not run your code.
You mentioned that the Thread.Sleep simulates a "delay" in some operation you're making. However, you need to consider two main causes of such "delays":
An I/O request waiting for completion (reading a file, querying a database, sending an HTTP request...)
CPU work
The two have different solutions. If you're dealing with I/O, the best way would usually be to switch over to using asynchronous I/O. This is a breeze with await:
var response = await new HttpClient().GetAsync("http://www.google.com/");
This ensures that your GUI thread can do its job while your request is pending, and your code will restore back on the UI thread after the response gets back.
The second one is mainly solved with multi-threading. You should be extra careful when using multi-threading, because it adds in many complexities you don't get in a single-threaded model. The simplest way of treating multi-threading properly is by ensuring that you're not accessing any shared state - that's where synchronization becomes necessary. Again, with await, this is a breeze:
var someData = "Very important data";
var result = await Task.Run(() => RunComplexComputation(someData));
Again, the computation will run outside of your UI thread, but as soon as its completed and the GUI thread is idle again, your code execution will resume back on the UI thread, with the proper result.

something like that maybe ?
public async void Sleep(int milliseconds)
{
// your code
await Task.Delay(milliseconds); // non-blocking sleep
// your code
}
And if, for reasons that escape me, you HAVE to use Thread.Sleep, you can handle it like that :
public async void YourMethod()
{
// your code
await Task.Run(() => Thread.Sleep(1000)); // non-blocking sleep using Thread.Sleep
// your code
}

Use MultiThreading.
Use a different thread for sleep rather than the main GUI thread. This way it will not interfere with your Main application

What do I do with async Tasks I don't want to wait for?

I am writing a multi player game server and am looking at ways the new C# async/await features can
help me. The core of the server is a loop which updates all the actors in the game as fast as it
can:
while (!shutdown)
{
foreach (var actor in actors)
actor.Update();
// Send and receive pending network messages
// Various other system maintenance
}
This loop is required to handle thousands of actors and update multiple times per second to keep the
game running smoothly. Some actors occasionally perform slow tasks in their update functions, such
as fetching data from a database, which is where I'd like to use async. Once this data is retrieved
the actor wants to update the game state, which must be done on the main thread.
As this is a console application, I plan to write a SynchronizationContext which can dispatch
pending delegates to the main loop. This allows those tasks to update the game once they complete
and lets unhandled exceptions be thrown into the main loop. My question is, how do write the async
update functions? This works very nicely, but breaks the recommendations not to use async void:
Thing foo;
public override void Update()
{
foo.DoThings();
if (someCondition) {
UpdateAsync();
}
}
async void UpdateAsync()
{
// Get data, but let the server continue in the mean time
var newFoo = await GetFooFromDatabase();
// Now back on the main thread, update game state
this.foo = newFoo;
}
I could make Update() async and propogate the tasks back to the main loop, but:
I don't want to add overhead to the thousands of updates that will never use it.
Even in the main loop I don't want to await the tasks and block the loop.
Awaiting the task would cause a deadlock anyway as it needs to complete on the awaiting thread.
What do I do with all these tasks I can't await? The only time I might want to know they've all
finished is when I'm shutting the server down, but I don't want to collect every task generated by
potentially weeks worth of updates.

My understanding is that the crux of it is that you want:
while (!shutdown)
{
//This should happen immediately and completions occur on the main thread.
foreach (var actor in actors)
actor.Update(); //includes i/o bound database operations
// The subsequent code should not be delayed
...
}
Where the while loop is running in your main console thread. This is a tight single-threaded loop. You could run the foreach in parallel, but then you would still be waiting for the longest running instance (the i/o bound operation to get the data from the database).
await async is not the best option within this loop, you need to run these i/o database tasks on a thread pool. On the thread pool async await would be useful to free up pool threads.
So, the next question is how to get these completions back to your main thread. Well, it seems like you need something equivalent to a message pump on your main thread. See this post for information on how to do that, though that may be a bit heavy handed. You could just have a completion queue of sorts that you check on the main thread in each pass through your while Loop. You would use one of the concurrent data structures to do this so that it is all thread safe then set Foo if it needs to be set.
It seems that there is some room to rationalise this polling of actors and threading, but without knowing the details of the app it is hard to say.
A couple of points: -
If you do not have a Wait higher up on a task, your main console thread will exit and so will your application. See here for details.
As you have pointed out, await async does not block the current thread, but it does mean that the code subsequent to the await will only execute on completion of the await.
The completion may or may not be completed on the calling thread. You have already mentioned Synchronization Context, so I won't go into the details.
Synchronization Context is null on a Console app. See here for information.
Async isn't really for fire-and-forget type operations.
For fire and forget you can use one of these options depending on your scenario:
Use Task.Run or Task.StartNew. See here for differences.
Use a producer/consumer type pattern for the long running scenarios running under your own threadpool.
Be aware of the following: -
That you will need to handle the exceptions in your spawned tasks / threads. If there are any exceptions that you do not observe, you may want to handle these, even just to log their occurence. See the information on unobserved exceptions.
If your process dies while these long running tasks are on the queue or starting they will not be run, so you may want some kind of persistence mechanism (database, external queue, file) that keeps track of the state of these operations.
If you want to know about the state of these tasks, then you will need to keep track of them in some way, whether it is an in memory list, or by querying the queues for your own thread pool or by querying the persistence mechanism. The nice thing about the persistence mechanism is that it is resilient to crashes and during shutdown you could just close down immediately, then pick up where you ended up when you restart (this of course depends on how critical it is that the tasks are run within a certain timeframe).

First, I recommend that you do not use your own SynchronizationContext; I have one available as part of my AsyncEx library that I commonly use for Console apps.
As far as your update methods go, they should return Task. My AsyncEx library has a number of "task constants" that are useful when you have a method that might be asynchronous:
public override Task Update() // Note: not "async"
{
foo.DoThings();
if (someCondition) {
return UpdateAsync();
}
else {
return TaskConstants.Completed;
}
}
async Task UpdateAsync()
{
// Get data, but let the server continue in the mean time
var newFoo = await GetFooFromDatabase();
// Now back on the main thread, update game state
this.foo = newFoo;
}
Returning to your main loop, the solution there isn't quite as clear. If you want every actor to complete before continuing to the next actor, then you can do this:
AsyncContext.Run(async () =>
{
while (!shutdown)
{
foreach (var actor in actors)
await actor.Update();
...
}
});
Alternatively, if you want to start all actors simultaneously and wait for them all to complete before moving to the next "tick", you can do this:
AsyncContext.Run(async () =>
{
while (!shutdown)
{
await Task.WhenAll(actors.Select(actor => actor.Update()));
...
}
});
When I say "simultaneously" above, it is actually starting each actor in order, and since they all execute on the main thread (including the async continuations), there's no actual simultaneous behavior; each "chuck of code" will execute on the same thread.

I highly recommend watching this video or just taking a look at the slides:
Three Essential Tips for Using Async in Microsoft Visual C# and Visual Basic
From my understanding what you should probably be doing in this scenario is returning Task<Thing> in UpdateAsync and possibly even Update.
If you are performing some async operations with 'foo' outside the main loop what happens when the async part completes during a future sequential update? I believe you really want to wait on all your update tasks to complete and then swap your internal state over in one go.
Ideally you would start all the slow (database) updates first and then do the other faster ones so that the entire set is ready as soon as possible.

multithreading in winforms application

I’m writing a win forms that uses the report viewer for the creation of multiple PDF files. These PDF files are divided in 4 main parts, each part is responsible for the creation of a specific report. These processes are creating a minimum of 1 file up to the number of users (currently 50).
The program already exists using there 4 methods sequentially. For extra performance where the number of users is growing, I want to separate these methods from the mail process in 4 separate threads.
While I'm new to multithreading using C# I read a number of articles how to achieve this. The only thing I'm not sure of is which way I should start. As I read multiple blog posts I'm not sure if to use 4 separate threads, a thread pool or multiple background workers. (or should parallel programming be the best way?). Blog posts tell me if more than 3 threads use a thread pool, but on the other hand the tell me if using winforms, use the backgroundworker. Which option is best (and why)?
At the end my main thread has to wait for all processes to end before continuing.
Can someone tell me what's the best solution to my problem.
* Extra information after edit *
Which i forgot to tell (after i read al your comments and possible solutions). The methods share one "IEnumerable" only for reading. After firing the methods (that don't have to run sequentially), the methods trigger events for for sending status updates to the UI. I think triggering events is difficult if not impossible using separate threads so there should be some kind of callback function to report status updates while running.
some example in psuedo code.
main()
{
private List<customclass> lcc = importCustomClass()
export.CreatePDFKind1.create(lcc.First(), exportfolderpath, arg1)
export.CreatePDFKind2.create(lcc, exportfolderpath)
export.CreatePDFKind3.create(lcc.First(), exportfolderpath)
export.CreatePDFKind4.create(customclass2, exportfolderpath)
}
namespace export
{
class CreatePDFKind1
{
create(customclass cc, string folderpath)
{
do something;
reportstatus(listviewItem, status, message)
}
}
class CreatePDFKind2
{
create(IEnumerable<customclass> lcc, string folderpath)
{
foreach (var x in lcc)
{
do something;
reportstatus(listviewItem, status, message)
}
}
}
etc.......
}

From the very basic picture you have described, I would use the Task Paralell Library (TPL). Shipped with .NET Framework 4.0+.
You talk about the 'best' option of using thread pools when spawning a large-to-medium number of threads. Dispite this being correct [the most efficent way of mangaing the resources], the TPL does all of this for you - without you having to worry about a thing. The TPL also makes the use of multiple threads and waiting on their completion a doddle too...
To do what you require I would use the TPL and Continuations. A continuation not only allows you to create a flow of tasks but also handles your exceptions. This is a great introduction to the TPL. But to give you some idea...
You can start a TPL task using
Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
// Do some work here...
});
Now to start a second task when an antecedent task finishes (in error or successfully) you can use the ContinueWith method
Task task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine("Antecedant Task"));
Task task2 = task1.ContinueWith(antTask => Console.WriteLine("Continuation..."));
So as soon as task1 completes, fails or is cancelled task2 'fires-up' and starts running. Note that if task1 had completed before reaching the second line of code task2 would be scheduled to execute immediately. The antTask argument passed to the second lambda is a reference to the antecedent task. See this link for more detailed examples...
You can also pass continuations results from the antecedent task
Task.Factory.StartNew<int>(() => 1)
.ContinueWith(antTask => antTask.Result * 4)
.ContinueWith(antTask => antTask.Result * 4)
.ContinueWith(antTask =>Console.WriteLine(antTask.Result * 4)); // Prints 64.
Note. Be sure to read up on exception handling in the first link provided as this can lead a newcomer to TPL astray.
One last thing to look at in particular for what you want is child tasks. Child tasks are those which are created as AttachedToParent. In this case the continuation will not run until all child tasks have completed
TaskCreationOptions atp = TaskCreationOptions.AttachedToParent;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { SomeMethod() }, atp);
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { SomeOtherMethod() }, atp);
}).ContinueWith( cont => { Console.WriteLine("Finished!") });
So in your case you would start your four tasks, then wait on their completion on the main thread.
I hope this helps.

Using a BackgroundWorker is helpful if you need to interact with the UI with respect to your background process. If you don't, then I wouldn't bother with it. You can just start 4 Task objects directly:
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>DoStuff()));
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>DoStuff2()));
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>DoStuff3()));
If you do need to interact with the UI; possibly by updating it to reflect when the tasks are finished, then I would suggest staring one BackgroundWorker and then using tasks again to process each individual unit of work. Since there is some additional overhead in using a BackgroundWorker I would avoid starting lots of them if you can avoid it.
BackgroundWorker bgw = new BackgroundWorker();
bgw.DoWork += (_, args) =>
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoStuff()));
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoStuff2()));
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoStuff3()));
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
};
bgw.RunWorkerCompleted += (_, args) => updateUI();
bgw.RunWorkerAsync();
You could of course use just Task methods to do all of this, but I still find BackgroundWorkers a bit simpler to work with for the simpler cases. Using .NEt 4.5 you could use Task.WhenAll to run a continuation in the UI thread when all 4 tasks finished, but doing that in 4.0 wouldn't be quite as simple.

Without further information it's impossible to tell. The fact that they're in four separate methods doesn't make much of a difference if they're accessing the same resources. The PDF file for example. If you're having trouble understanding what I mean you should post some of the code for each method and I'll go into a little more detail.
Since the number of "parts" you have is fixed it won't make a big difference whether you use separate threads, background workers or use a thread pool. I'm not sure why people are recommending background workers. Most likely because it's a simpler approach to multithreading and more difficult to screw up.

How to ensure order of async operation calls?

[This appears to be a loooong question but I have tried to make it as clear as possible. Please have patience and help me...]
I have written a test class which supports an Async operation. That operation does nothing but reports 4 numbers:
class AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations
{
AsyncOperation asyncOp;
bool isBusy;
void NotifyStarted () {
isBusy = true;
Started (this, new EventArgs ());
}
void NotifyStopped () {
isBusy = false;
Stopped (this, new EventArgs ());
}
public void Start () {
if (isBusy)
throw new InvalidOperationException ("Already working you moron...");
asyncOp = AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation (null);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem (new WaitCallback (StartOperation));
}
public event EventHandler Started = delegate { };
public event EventHandler Stopped = delegate { };
public event EventHandler<NewNumberEventArgs> NewNumber = delegate { };
private void StartOperation (object state) {
asyncOp.Post (args => NotifyStarted (), null);
for (int i = 1; i < 5; i++)
asyncOp.Post (args => NewNumber (this, args as NewNumberEventArgs), new NewNumberEventArgs (i));
asyncOp.Post (args => NotifyStopped (), null);
}
}
class NewNumberEventArgs: EventArgs
{
public int Num { get; private set; }
public NewNumberEventArgs (int num) {
Num = num;
}
}
Then I wrote 2 test programs; one as console app and another as windows form app. Windows form app works as expected when I call Start repeatedly:
But console app has hard time ensuring the order:
Since I am working on class library, I have to ensure that my library works correctly in all app models (Haven't tested in ASP.NET app yet). So I have following questions:
I have tested enough times and it appears to be working but is it OK to assume above code will always work in windows form app?
Whats the reason it (order) doesn't work correctly in console app? How can I fix it?
Not much experienced with ASP.NET. Will the order work in ASP.NET app?
[EDIT: Test stubs can be seen here if that helps.]

Unless I am missing something then given the code above I believe there is no way of guaranteeing the order of execution. I have never used the AsyncOperation and AsyncOperationManager class but I looked in reflector and as could be assumed AsyncOperation.Post uses the thread pool to execute the given code asynchronously.
This means that in the example you have provided 4 tasks will be queued to the thread pool synchronously in very quick succession. The thread pool will then dequeue the tasks in FIFO order (first in first out) but it's entirely possible for one of later threads to be scheduled before an earlier one or one of the later threads to complete before an earlier thread has completed its work.
Therefore given what you have there is no way to control the order in the way you desire. There are ways to do this, a good place to look is this article on MSDN.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd419664.aspx

I use a Queue you can then Enqueue stuff and Dequeue stuff in the correct order. This solved this problem for me.

The documentation for AsyncOperation.Post states:
Console applications do not synchronize the execution of Post calls. This can cause ProgressChanged events to be raised out of order. If you wish to have serialized execution of Post calls, implement and install a System.Threading.SynchronizationContext class.
I think this is the exact behavior you’re seeing. Basically, if the code that wants to subscribe to notifications from your asynchronous event wants to receive the updates in order, it must ensure that there is a synchronization context installed and that your AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation() call is run inside of that context. If the code consuming the asynchronous events doesn’t care about receiving them in the correct order, it simply needs to avoid installing a synchronization context which will result in the “default” context being used (which just queues calls directly to the threadpool which may execute them in any order it wants to).
In the GUI version of your application, if you call your API from a UI thread, you will automatically have a synchronization context. This context is wired up to use the UI’s message queueing system which guarantees that posted messages are processed in order and serially (i.e., not concurrently).
In a Console application, unless if you manually install your own synchronization context, you will be using the default, non-synchronizing threadpool version. I am not exactly sure, but I don’t think that .net makes installing a serializing synchronization context very easy to do. I just use Nito.AsyncEx.AsyncContext from the Nito.AsyncEx nuget package to do that for me. Basically, if you call Nito.AsyncEx.AsyncContext.Run(MyMethod), it will capture the current thread and run an event loop with MyMethod as the first “handler” in that event loop. If MyMethod calls something that creates an AsyncOperation, that operation increments an “ongoing operations” counter and that loop will continue until the operation is completed via AsyncOperation.PostOperationCompleted or AsyncOperation.OperationCompleted. Just like the synchronization context provided by a UI thread, AsyncContext will queue posts from AsyncOperation.Post() in the order it receives them and run them serially in its event loop.
Here is an example of how to use AsyncContext with your demo asynchronous operation:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting SynchronizationContext");
Nito.AsyncEx.AsyncContext.Run(Run);
Console.WriteLine("SynchronizationContext finished");
}
// This method is run like it is a UI callback. I.e., it has a
// single-threaded event-loop-based synchronization context which
// processes asynchronous callbacks.
static Task Run()
{
var remainingTasks = new Queue<Action>();
Action startNextTask = () =>
{
if (remainingTasks.Any())
remainingTasks.Dequeue()();
};
foreach (var i in Enumerable.Range(0, 4))
{
remainingTasks.Enqueue(
() =>
{
var demoOperation = new AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations();
demoOperation.Started += (sender, e) => Console.WriteLine("Started");
demoOperation.NewNumber += (sender, e) => Console.WriteLine($"Received number {e.Num}");
demoOperation.Stopped += (sender, e) =>
{
// The AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperation has a bug where it fails to call
// AsyncOperation.OperationCompleted(). Do that for it. If we don’t,
// the AsyncContext will never exit because there are outstanding unfinished
// asynchronous operations.
((AsyncOperation)typeof(AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations).GetField("asyncOp", BindingFlags.NonPublic|BindingFlags.Instance).GetValue(demoOperation)).OperationCompleted();
Console.WriteLine("Stopped");
// Start the next task.
startNextTask();
};
demoOperation.Start();
});
}
// Start the first one.
startNextTask();
// AsyncContext requires us to return a Task because that is its
// normal use case.
return Nito.AsyncEx.TaskConstants.Completed;
}
}
With output:
Starting SynchronizationContext
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
SynchronizationContext finished
Note that in my example code I work around a bug in AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations which you should probably fix: when your operation stops, you never call AsyncOperation.OperationCompleted or AsyncOperation.PostOperationCompleted. This causes AsyncContext.Run() to hang forever because it is waiting for the outstanding operations to complete. You should make sure that your asynchronous operations complete—even in error cases. Otherwise you might run into similar issues elsewhere.
Also, my demo code, to imitate the output you showed in the winforms and console example, waits for each operation to finish before starting the next one. That kind of defeats the point of asynchronous coding. You can probably tell that my code could be greatly simplified by starting all four tasks at once. Each individual task would receive its callbacks in the correct order, but they would all make progress concurrently.
Recommendation
Because of how AsyncOperation seems to work and how it is intended to be used, it is the responsibility of the caller of an asynchronous API that uses this pattern to decide if it wants to receive events in order or not. If you are going to use AsyncOperation, you should document that the asynchronous events will only be received in order by the caller if the caller has a synchronization context that enforces serialization and suggest that the caller call your API on either a UI thread or in something like AsyncContext.Run(). If you try to use synchronization primitives and whatnot inside of the delegate you call with AsyncOperation.Post(), you could end up putting threadpool threads in a sleeping state which is a bad thing when considering performance and is completely redundant/wasteful when the caller of your API has properly set up a synchronization context already. This also enables the caller to decide that, if it is fine with receiving things out of order, that it is willing to process events concurrently and out of order. That may even enable speedup depending on what you’re doing. Or you might even decide to put something like a sequence number in your NewNumberEventArgs in case the caller wants both concurrency and still needs to be able to assemble the events into order at some point.