In my main class I create a wpf window (p) and a function to display the window with a given message on it in a label (content).
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
///Creates Window
public static Wils0n.Window1 p = new Wils0n.Window1();
/// <summary>
/// creates notif bar with message
/// </summary>
/// <param name="message">Message for notif bar</param>
public static void NotifProc(string message)
{
///sets global string to message
Commands.MyGlobals.inputtext = message;
p.Dispatcher.Invoke(new Action(delegate ()
{
MainWindow.p.Topmost = true;
MainWindow.p.Top = 0;
///sets label content to global string (this only works once)
MainWindow.p.content.Content = Commands.MyGlobals.inputtext;
MainWindow.p.Left = System.Windows.SystemParameters.WorkArea.Width / 2 - (MainWindow.p.Width / 2);
MainWindow.p.Show();
Thread.Sleep(2000);
while (MainWindow.p.Top != -114)
{
MainWindow.p.Top -= 3;
Thread.Sleep(15);
}
MainWindow.p.Hide();
}
));
}
}
Then in another class in another namespace I call it like such..
namespace Wilson.Utils
{
class Commands
{
public void start()
{
///creates notification window thats reads "hello world"
MainWindow.NotifProc("hello world");
///creates notification window thats reads "test1"
///For some reason reads "hello world"
MainWindow.NotifProc("test1");
///creates notification window thats reads "test2"
///For some reason reads "hello world"
MainWindow.NotifProc("test2");
}
///creates global string
public static class MyGlobals
{
public static string inputtext = "";
}
}
}
This works perfectly fine the first time only, if I call it again it with a different message it wont update the message but the notif still works it just displays the old message.
I have also had this problem with changing MainWindow.p.Opacity and MainWindow.p.Background
Without Dispatcher.Invoke I get an error reading "cannot access object because a different thread owns it".
If I remove Commands.MyGlobals.inputtext = message; and put Commans.MyGlobals.inputtext = "test1" before MainWindow.NotifProc("test1"); it still doesn't work.
I have also tried creating a class like such:
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
private static Action EmptyDelegate = delegate () { };
public static void Refresh(this UIElement uiElement)
{
uiElement.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Render, EmptyDelegate);
}
}
and adding:
p.content.Refresh();
but had no luck.
Any help would be great. :/
EDIT
I managed to find a fix although it is probably not the best:
instead of creating a new window at the beginning I create a new window each time the window animation is called. VS said the thread must be STA so I called it in an STA thread and lastly I added a check at the end of the window animation so that no new windows can be created until the first is done.
My new NotifProc function looks like this:
public static void NotifProc(string message)
{
Tools.MyGlobals.notifmessage = message;
var thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(STAThread));
thread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
thread.Start();
thread.Join();
}
private static void STAThread()
{
Wils0n.Window1 p = new Wils0n.Window1();
p.content.Content = Tools.MyGlobals.notifmessage;
p.content.Refresh();
p.Topmost = true;
p.Top = 0;
p.Left = System.Windows.SystemParameters.WorkArea.Width / 2 - (p.Width / 2);
p.Show();
Thread.Sleep(2000);
while (p.Top != -114)
{
p.Top -= 3;
Thread.Sleep(15);
}
p.Close();
}
Instead of calling Thread.Sleep in the UI thread, and thus blocking it, you should simply animate the Window position like this:
public static void NotifProc(string message)
{
p.Content.Content = message;
p.Left = SystemParameters.WorkArea.Width / 2 - (p.Width / 2);
p.Top = 0;
p.Topmost = true;
p.Show();
var animation = new DoubleAnimation
{
To = -114,
BeginTime = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2),
Duration = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(0.57)
};
animation.Completed += (s, e) => p.Hide();
p.BeginAnimation(TopProperty, animation);
}
If you want to call the method from a thread other than the UI thread, do it like this:
Application.Current.Dispatcher.Invoke(() => NotifProc(...));
or
MainWindow.p.Dispatcher.Invoke(() => NotifProc(...));
I'm using a System.Timers.Timer in my application. Every second I run a function which does some job. The thing is, this function can block for some little time (it reads then processes a large file from disk). I want to start that function only if its previous "execution instance" has completed. I thought I could achieve this with a Mutex:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Timers;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static Mutex TimerMut = new Mutex(false);
public static void Main()
{
Thread TT = new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate()
{
System.Timers.Timer oTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
oTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(Handler);
oTimer.Interval = 1000;
oTimer.Enabled = true;
}));
TT.Start();
Console.Read();
}
private static void Handler(object oSource,
ElapsedEventArgs oElapsedEventArgs)
{
TimerMut.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("foo");
Thread.Sleep(500); //simulate some work
Console.WriteLine("bar");
TimerMut.ReleaseMutex();
}
}
}
That doesn't work, "foos" still appear every second. How can I achieve this?
EDIT: You're right, it makes no sense to start a new thread to handle this. I thought only System.Threading.Timer is launched in a separate thread.
I'm not sure why you are using a new thread to start the timer, since timers run on their own thread, but here's a method that works. Simply turn the timer off until you are done with the current interval.
static System.Timers.Timer oTimer
public static void Main()
{
oTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
oTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(Handler);
oTimer.Interval = 1000;
oTimer.Enabled = true;
}
private void Handler(object oSource, ElapsedEventArgs oElapsedEventArgs)
{
oTimer.Enabled = false;
Console.WriteLine("foo");
Thread.Sleep(5000); //simulate some work
Console.WriteLine("bar");
oTimer.Enabled = true;
}
If you want to skip the tick if another is already working you can do this.
private readonly object padlock = new object();
private void SomeMethod()
{
if(!Monitor.TryEnter(padlock))
return;
try
{
//Do heavy work
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(padlock);
}
}
Easiest way I know of to do this kind of thing:
internal static volatile bool isRunning;
public static void Main()
{
Thread TT = new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate()
{
System.Timers.Timer oTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
oTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(Handler);
oTimer.Interval = 1000;
oTimer.Enabled = true;
}));
TT.Start();
}
private void Handler(object oSource,
ElapsedEventArgs oElapsedEventArgs)
{
if(isRunning) return;
isRunning = true;
try
{
Console.WriteLine("foo");
Thread.Sleep(500); //simulate some work
Console.WriteLine("bar");
}
finally { isRunning = false; }
}
The handler still runs, but the very first thing it does is make sure that another handler isn't running, and if one is, it stops immediately.
For timers executing handlers more quickly (like 3-4 times a second), this has the possibility to race; two threads could proceed past the guard clause before one of them sets the bit. You can avoid this with a couple of lock statements, similar to a Mutex or Monitor:
static object syncObj = new object();
private void Handler(object oSource,
ElapsedEventArgs oElapsedEventArgs)
{
lock(syncObj)
{
if(isRunning) return;
isRunning = true;
}
try
{
Console.WriteLine("foo");
Thread.Sleep(500); //simulate some work
Console.WriteLine("bar");
}
finally { lock(syncObj) { isRunning = false; } }
}
This will ensure that only one thread can ever be examining or modifying isRunning, and as isRunning is marked volatile, the CLR won't cache its value as part of each thread's state for performance; each thread has to look at exactly the same memory location to examine or change the value.
You can follow the following pattern to skip doing the indicated work if another invocation of this method is still running:
private int isWorking = 0;
public void Foo()
{
if (Interlocked.Exchange(ref isWorking, 1) == 0)
{
try
{
//Do work
}
finally
{
Interlocked.Exchange(ref isWorking, 0);
}
}
}
The approach that you were using with a Mutex will result in addition ticks waiting for earlier ticks to finish, not skipping invocations when another is still running, which is what you said you wanted. (When dealing with timers like this its common to want to skip such ticks, not wait. If your tick handlers regularly take too long you end up with a giant queue of waiting handlers.)
I am attempting to invoke a method as many times as possible given its within 1 second, so I decided to use a timer to help perform this, but when the timer runs the tick event handler (after 1 seconds) the method is still invoked - I have started it of as follows:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public static Timer prntScreenTimer = new Timer();
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
startCapture();
}
private static void startCapture()
{
prntScreenTimer.Tick += new EventHandler(prntScreenTimer_Tick);
prntScreenTimer.Start();
prntScreenTimer.Interval = 1000;
while (prntScreenTimer.Enabled)
{
captureScreen();
}
}
private static void prntScreenTimer_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
prntScreenTimer.Stop();
}
private static void captureScreen()
{
int ScreenWidth = Screen.PrimaryScreen.Bounds.Width;
int ScreenHeight = Screen.PrimaryScreen.Bounds.Height;
Graphics g;
Bitmap b = new Bitmap(ScreenWidth, ScreenHeight);
g = Graphics.FromImage(b);
g.CopyFromScreen(Point.Empty, Point.Empty, Screen.PrimaryScreen.Bounds.Size);
// Draw bitmap to screen
// pictureBox1.Image = b;
// Output bitmap to file
Random random = new Random();
int randomNumber = random.Next(0, 10000);
b.Save("printScrn-" + randomNumber, System.Drawing.Imaging.ImageFormat.Bmp);
}
}
}
I believe the problem is that you are blocking the main thread in startcapture. The forms Timer needs messages to be processed in order to run. Change the loop to this:
while (prntScreenTimer.Enabled)
{
captureScreen();
Application.DoEvents();
}
Since you don't need access to the UI thread from your method this would be better since it won't block the UI:
private void startCapture()
{
Thread captureThread = new Thread(captureThreadMethod);
captureThread.Start();
}
private void captureThreadMethod()
{
Stopwatch stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
while(stopwatch.Elapsed < TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))
{
captureScreen();
}
}
Your code looks correct to me, so I can’t identify the cause of your issue. However, you don’t really need a Timer for what you’re doing; a simple Stopwatch checked within a while loop may suffice:
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
while (sw.ElapsedMilliseconds < 1000)
captureScreen();
How many times the method is invoked? How did you count this (it cannot be told from the code you pasted).
Whatever the case is, you must remember the elapsed event runs on a separate thread, and therefore such race conditions are possible (your method running once or even more after you stpped the timer). There are of course ways to prevent such race conditions. A somewhat complicated sample to this exists here, on the msdn
I have an array of five threads. Each thread contains the same form, each form is put on to the screen in a different location (still working on that method :P).
I am trying to have each form load its contents (an image) before the other forms have finishing being placed. At the moment this works for the first form, but the others are blank or disappear :P
Originally each form would be placed but the method would need to finish before all the forms contents were displayed.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks :)
public partial class TrollFrm : Form
{
int number = 0;
public TrollFrm()
{
InitializeComponent();
startThreads();
}
private void TrollFrm_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
private void TrollFrm_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
e.Cancel = true;
}
public void startThreads()
{
Thread[] ThreadArray = new Thread[5];
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
ThreadArray[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(createForm));
ThreadArray[i].Start();
}
}
public void createForm()
{
Form frm = new TrollChildFrm();
Random randomX = new Random();
Random randomY = new Random();
number++;
int xValue;
int yValue;
if (number % 2 == 0) //number is even.
{
xValue = (Convert.ToInt32(randomX.Next(1, 1920))) + 200;
yValue = (Convert.ToInt32(randomY.Next(1, 1080))) - 200;
}
else //number is not even.
{
xValue = (Convert.ToInt32(randomX.Next(1, 1920))) - 200;
yValue = (Convert.ToInt32(randomY.Next(1, 1080))) + 200;
}
frm.Show();
frm.Location = new Point(xValue, yValue);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
Your forms are not displaying correctly because they are not running on a thread with a message loop. The general rule is that all UI element accesses must occur on the main UI thread.
Since you have a call to Thread.Sleep(1000) I am going to assume that you want to wait 1 second between the initial display of each form. In that case I would use a System.Windows.Forms.Timer who's Tick event will call createForm directly. Enable the timer, let 5 Tick events come through, and then disable the timer. I see no need to create any threads at all.
The reason your forms aren't displaying is because you are running inside one method on the main UI thread. Instead, you could create a method that spawns a new form and launch that at certain intervals on another thread (making sure the form handling is done on the main UI thread). So you could do something like:
(Pseudo Code)
private const int TIME_THRESHOLD = 100;
int mElapsedTime = 0;
Timer mTimer = new Timer();
.ctor
{
mTimer.Elapsed += mTimer_Elapsed;
}
private void mTimer_Elapsed(...)
{
mElapsedTime++;
if (mElapsedTime >= TIME_THRESHOLD)
{
mElapsedTime = 0;
SpawnForm();
}
}
private void SpawnForm()
{
// Make sure your running on the UI thread
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(SpawnForm));
return;
}
// ... spawn the form ...
}
This is just an example of what I was proposing - it would not look exactly like this in the code, but this should give you an idea of the execution steps.
I would suggest to use Thread.Sleep(1000) in this manner
Caller section
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
ThreadArray[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(createForm));
ThreadArray[i].Start();
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Also in the method that executing the work for the thread.
while(!something)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000)
}
I appear to have a memory leak in this piece of code. It is a console app, which creates a couple of classes (WorkerThread), each of which writes to the console at specified intervals. The Threading.Timer is used to do this, hence writing to the console is performed in a separate thread (the TimerCallback is called in a seperate thread taken from the ThreadPool). To complicate matters, the MainThread class hooks on to the Changed event of the FileSystemWatcher; when the test.xml file changes, the WorkerThread classes are recreated.
Each time the file is saved, (each time that the WorkerThread and therefore the Timer is recreated), the memory in the Task Manager increases (Mem Usage, and sometimes also VM Size); furthermore, in .Net Memory Profiler (v3.1), the Undisposed Instances of the WorkerThread class increases by two (this may be a red herring though, because I've read that .Net Memory Profiler had a bug whereby it struggled to detect disposed classes.
Anyway, here's the code - does anyone know what's wrong?
EDIT: I've moved the class creation out of the FileSystemWatcher.Changed event handler, meaning that the WorkerThread classes are always being created in the same thread. I've added some protection to the static variables. I've also provided threading information to show more clearly what's going on, and have been interchanging using the Timer with using an explicit Thread; however, the memory is still leaking! The Mem Usage increases slowly all the time (is this simply due to extra text in the console window?), and the VM Size increases when I change the file. Here is the latest version of the code:
EDIT This appears to be primarily a problem with the console using up memory, as you write to it. There is still a problem with explicitly written Threads increasing the memory usage. See my answer below.
class Program
{
private static List<WorkerThread> threads = new List<WorkerThread>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MainThread.Start();
}
}
public class MainThread
{
private static int _eventsRaised = 0;
private static int _eventsRespondedTo = 0;
private static bool _reload = false;
private static readonly object _reloadLock = new object();
//to do something once in handler, though
//this code would go in onStart in a windows service.
public static void Start()
{
WorkerThread thread1 = null;
WorkerThread thread2 = null;
Console.WriteLine("Start: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//watch config
FileSystemWatcher watcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
watcher.Path = "../../";
watcher.Filter = "test.xml";
watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
//subscribe to changed event. note that this event can be raised a number of times for each save of the file.
watcher.Changed += (sender, args) => FileChanged(sender, args);
thread1 = new WorkerThread("foo", 10);
thread2 = new WorkerThread("bar", 15);
while (true)
{
if (_reload)
{
//create our two threads.
Console.WriteLine("Start - reload: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//wait, to enable other file changed events to pass
Console.WriteLine("Start - waiting: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
thread1.Dispose();
thread2.Dispose();
Thread.Sleep(3000); //each thread lasts 0.5 seconds, so 3 seconds should be plenty to wait for the
//LoadData function to complete.
Monitor.Enter(_reloadLock);
thread1 = new WorkerThread("foo", 10);
thread2 = new WorkerThread("bar", 15);
_reload = false;
Monitor.Exit(_reloadLock);
}
}
}
//this event handler is called in a separate thread to Start()
static void FileChanged(object source, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
Monitor.Enter(_reloadLock);
_eventsRaised += 1;
//if it was more than a second since the last event (ie, it's a new save), then wait for 3 seconds (to avoid
//multiple events for the same file save) before processing
if (!_reload)
{
Console.WriteLine("FileChanged: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
_eventsRespondedTo += 1;
Console.WriteLine("FileChanged. Handled event {0} of {1}.", _eventsRespondedTo, _eventsRaised);
//tell main thread to restart threads
_reload = true;
}
Monitor.Exit(_reloadLock);
}
}
public class WorkerThread : IDisposable
{
private System.Threading.Timer timer; //the timer exists in its own separate thread pool thread.
private string _name = string.Empty;
private int _interval = 0; //thread wait interval in ms.
private Thread _thread = null;
private ThreadStart _job = null;
public WorkerThread(string name, int interval)
{
Console.WriteLine("WorkerThread: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
_name = name;
_interval = interval * 1000;
_job = new ThreadStart(LoadData);
_thread = new Thread(_job);
_thread.Start();
//timer = new Timer(Tick, null, 1000, interval * 1000);
}
//this delegate instance does NOT run in the same thread as the thread that created the timer. It runs in its own
//thread, taken from the ThreadPool. Hence, no need to create a new thread for the LoadData method.
private void Tick(object state)
{
//LoadData();
}
//Loads the data. Called from separate thread. Lasts 0.5 seconds.
//
//private void LoadData(object state)
private void LoadData()
{
while (true)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Worker thread {0} ({2}): {1}", _name, i, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId));
Thread.Sleep(50);
}
Thread.Sleep(_interval);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
Console.WriteLine("Stop: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//timer.Dispose();
_thread.Abort();
}
#region IDisposable Members
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Dispose: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//timer.Dispose();
_thread.Abort();
}
#endregion
}
You have two issues, both separate:
In Watcher.Changed's handler you call Thread.Sleep(3000);
This is poor behaviour in a callback of a thread you do not own (since it is being supplied by the pool owned/used by the watcher. This is not the source of your problem though. This it in direct violation of the guidelines for use
You use statics all over the place which is horrible, and has likely led you into this problem:
static void test()
{
_eventsRaised += 1;
//if it was more than a second since the last event (ie, it's a new save), then wait for 3 seconds (to avoid
//multiple events for the same file save) before processing
if (DateTime.Now.Ticks - _lastEventTicks > 1000)
{
Thread.Sleep(3000);
_lastEventTicks = DateTime.Now.Ticks;
_eventsRespondedTo += 1;
Console.WriteLine("File changed. Handled event {0} of {1}.", _eventsRespondedTo, _eventsRaised);
//stop threads and then restart them
thread1.Stop();
thread2.Stop();
thread1 = new WorkerThread("foo", 20);
thread2 = new WorkerThread("bar", 30);
}
}
This callback can fire repeatedly on multiple different threads (it uses the system thread pool for this) You code assumes that only one thread will ever execute this method at a time since threads can be created but not not stopped.
Imagine: thread A and B
A thread1.Stop()
A thread2.Stop()
B thread1.Stop()
B thread2.Stop()
A thread1 = new WorkerThread()
A thread2 = new WorkerThread()
B thread1 = new WorkerThread()
B thread2 = new WorkerThread()
You now have 4 WorkerThread instances on the heap but only two variables referencing them, the two created by A have leaked. The event handling and callback registration with the timer means that theses leaked WorkerThreads are kept alive (in the GC sense) despite you having no reference to them in your code. they stay leaked for ever.
There are other flaws in the design but this is a critical one.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Never use Thread.Abort().
Read the MSDN docs on it.
The thread is not guaranteed to abort immediately, or at all. This situation can occur if a thread does an unbounded amount of computation in the finally blocks that are called as part of the abort procedure, thereby indefinitely delaying the abort. To wait until a thread has aborted, you can call the Join method on the thread after calling the Abort method, but there is no guarantee the wait will end.
The correct way to end a thread is to signal to it that it should end, then call Join() on that thread. I usually do something like this (pseudo-code):
public class ThreadUsingClass
{
private object mSyncObject = new object();
private bool mKilledThread = false;
private Thread mThread = null;
void Start()
{
// start mThread
}
void Stop()
{
lock(mSyncObject)
{
mKilledThread = true;
}
mThread.Join();
}
void ThreadProc()
{
while(true)
{
bool isKilled = false;
lock(mSyncObject)
{
isKilled = mKilledThread;
}
if (isKilled)
return;
}
}
}
Well, having had some time to look into this again, it appears that the memory leak is a bit of a red herring. When I stop writing to the console, the memory usage stops increasing.
However, there is a remaining issue in that every time I edit the test.xml file (which fires the Changed event on the FileSystemWatcher, whose handler sets flags that cause the worker classes to be renewed and therefore threads/timers to be stopped), the memory increases by about 4K, providing that I am using explicit Threads, rather Timers. When I use a Timer, there is no problem. But, given that I would rather use a Timer than a Thread, this is no longer an issue to me, but I would still be interested in why it is occuring.
See the new code below. I've created two classes - WorkerThread and WorkerTimer, one of which uses Threads and the other Timers (I've tried two Timers, the System.Threading.Timer and the System.Timers.Timer. with the Console output switched on, you can see the difference that this makes with regards to which thread the tick event is raised on). Just comment/uncomment the appropriate lines of MainThread.Start in order to use the required class. For the reason above, it is recommended that the Console.WriteLine lines are commented out, except when you want to check that everything is working as expected.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MainThread.Start();
}
}
public class MainThread
{
private static int _eventsRaised = 0;
private static int _eventsRespondedTo = 0;
private static bool _reload = false;
private static readonly object _reloadLock = new object();
//to do something once in handler, though
//this code would go in onStart in a windows service.
public static void Start()
{
WorkerThread thread1 = null;
WorkerThread thread2 = null;
//WorkerTimer thread1 = null;
//WorkerTimer thread2 = null;
//Console.WriteLine("Start: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//watch config
FileSystemWatcher watcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
watcher.Path = "../../";
watcher.Filter = "test.xml";
watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
//subscribe to changed event. note that this event can be raised a number of times for each save of the file.
watcher.Changed += (sender, args) => FileChanged(sender, args);
thread1 = new WorkerThread("foo", 10);
thread2 = new WorkerThread("bar", 15);
//thread1 = new WorkerTimer("foo", 10);
//thread2 = new WorkerTimer("bar", 15);
while (true)
{
if (_reload)
{
//create our two threads.
//Console.WriteLine("Start - reload: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//wait, to enable other file changed events to pass
//Console.WriteLine("Start - waiting: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
thread1.Dispose();
thread2.Dispose();
Thread.Sleep(3000); //each thread lasts 0.5 seconds, so 3 seconds should be plenty to wait for the
//LoadData function to complete.
Monitor.Enter(_reloadLock);
//GC.Collect();
thread1 = new WorkerThread("foo", 5);
thread2 = new WorkerThread("bar", 7);
//thread1 = new WorkerTimer("foo", 5);
//thread2 = new WorkerTimer("bar", 7);
_reload = false;
Monitor.Exit(_reloadLock);
}
}
}
//this event handler is called in a separate thread to Start()
static void FileChanged(object source, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
Monitor.Enter(_reloadLock);
_eventsRaised += 1;
//if it was more than a second since the last event (ie, it's a new save), then wait for 3 seconds (to avoid
//multiple events for the same file save) before processing
if (!_reload)
{
//Console.WriteLine("FileChanged: thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
_eventsRespondedTo += 1;
//Console.WriteLine("FileChanged. Handled event {0} of {1}.", _eventsRespondedTo, _eventsRaised);
//tell main thread to restart threads
_reload = true;
}
Monitor.Exit(_reloadLock);
}
}
public class WorkerTimer : IDisposable
{
private System.Threading.Timer _timer; //the timer exists in its own separate thread pool thread.
//private System.Timers.Timer _timer;
private string _name = string.Empty;
/// <summary>
/// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="WorkerThread"/> class.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="name">The name.</param>
/// <param name="interval">The interval, in seconds.</param>
public WorkerTimer(string name, int interval)
{
_name = name;
//Console.WriteLine("WorkerThread constructor: Called from thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//_timer = new System.Timers.Timer(interval * 1000);
//_timer.Elapsed += (sender, args) => LoadData();
//_timer.Start();
_timer = new Timer(Tick, null, 1000, interval * 1000);
}
//this delegate instance does NOT run in the same thread as the thread that created the timer. It runs in its own
//thread, taken from the ThreadPool. Hence, no need to create a new thread for the LoadData method.
private void Tick(object state)
{
LoadData();
}
//Loads the data. Called from separate thread. Lasts 0.5 seconds.
//
private void LoadData()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Worker thread {0} ({2}): {1}", _name, i, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId));
Thread.Sleep(50);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
//Console.WriteLine("Stop: called from thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//_timer.Stop();
_timer.Change(Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
//_timer = null;
//_timer.Dispose();
}
#region IDisposable Members
public void Dispose()
{
//Console.WriteLine("Dispose: called from thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//_timer.Stop();
_timer.Change(Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
//_timer = null;
//_timer.Dispose();
}
#endregion
}
public class WorkerThread : IDisposable
{
private string _name = string.Empty;
private int _interval = 0; //thread wait interval in ms.
private Thread _thread = null;
private ThreadStart _job = null;
private object _syncObject = new object();
private bool _killThread = false;
public WorkerThread(string name, int interval)
{
_name = name;
_interval = interval * 1000;
_job = new ThreadStart(LoadData);
_thread = new Thread(_job);
//Console.WriteLine("WorkerThread constructor: thread " + _thread.ManagedThreadId + " created. Called from thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
_thread.Start();
}
//Loads the data. Called from separate thread. Lasts 0.5 seconds.
//
//private void LoadData(object state)
private void LoadData()
{
while (true)
{
//check to see if thread it to be stopped.
bool isKilled = false;
lock (_syncObject)
{
isKilled = _killThread;
}
if (isKilled)
return;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Worker thread {0} ({2}): {1}", _name, i, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId));
Thread.Sleep(50);
}
Thread.Sleep(_interval);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
//Console.WriteLine("Stop: thread " + _thread.ManagedThreadId + " called from thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//_thread.Abort();
lock (_syncObject)
{
_killThread = true;
}
_thread.Join();
}
#region IDisposable Members
public void Dispose()
{
//Console.WriteLine("Dispose: thread " + _thread.ManagedThreadId + " called from thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
//_thread.Abort();
lock (_syncObject)
{
_killThread = true;
}
_thread.Join();
}
#endregion
}
Well you never actually call dispose on the WorkerThread instances.
The actual worker threads aren't being disposed when the watched file event occurs. I think I would rewrite this so that new threads aren't created, but they are reinitialized. Instead of calling Stop and recreating the threads, call a new Restart method that just stops and resets the timer.
You never terminate the threads - use something like Process Explorer to check whether the thread count is increasing as well as memory. Add a call to Abort() in your Stop() method.
Edit: You did, thanks.