Develop Reference

Is it good practice to lock on a threaded instance of an object being used throughout an application?

Every example I've ever seen of locking uses a private object to lock specific blocks of code, and Thread Synchronization (C#) gives the same kind of example, but also says "Strictly speaking, the object provided is used solely to uniquely identify the resource being shared among multiple threads, so it can be an arbitrary class instance. In practice, however, this object usually represents the resource for which thread synchronization is necessary." (Emphasis mine.) In my example here, and in my code, there is only one instance of "MyClass", which is running on its own thread, and a reference to it is passed around to various other classes.
Is it OK to lock on the MyClass reference and then call Ready(), or should I instead put a private object() within MyClass and lock on that, as shown in the LockedReady() method? Thank you for your answer, in advance.
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var uc = new UserClass();
uc.DoThings();
}
}
public class MyClass
{
public bool Ready()
{
//determine if the class is ready to perform its function
//assumes that the instance of MyClass is locked,
//as shown in UserClass.DoThings
}
private object _readyLock = new object();
public bool LockedReady()
{
lock (_readyLock)
{
//determine if the class is ready to perform its function
//no assumption made that the object is locked, as
//shown in AnotherClass.DoAnotherThing()
}
}
}
public class UserClass
{
private MyClass _myc;
public UserClass()
{
var t = new Thread(SetupMyClass);
t.Start();
}
private void SetupMyClass()
{
_myc = new MyClass();
}
public void DoThings()
{
lock(_myc)
{
if (_myc.Ready())
{
//Do things
}
}
}
public void DoOtherThings()
{
var ac = new AnotherClass(_myc);
ac.DoAnotherThing();
}
}
public class AnotherClass
{
private MyClass _myc;
public AnotherClass(MyClass myClass)
{
_myc = myClass;
}
public void DoAnotherThing()
{
if (_myc.LockedReady())
{
//do another thing
}
}
}
}

Functionally, it doesn't matter, one object doesn't perform better than the other, unless there is shared use of that object by other locking concerns.
With C#, it isn't uncommon to lock on the actual domain object, rather than a surrogate object for the lock. It is also common to see a member object used, and a common legacy example is the SyncRoot object on the early System.Collections. Either way works, as long as you use a reference type.
However, the argument to be made for using an internal surrogate lock object is one of encapsulation. It eliminates the possibility of external interference if a user of your class decides to use your class as a lock. Using an internal lock object protects your locks from external interference, so one could argue that locking is an implementation detail that should be hidden.
The important thing is to ensure it is correct and appropriate. Make sure your locking is done at an appropriate granularity. (For example, using a static lock object probably isn't the best approach for a non-singleton, and probably not even most singletons). In cases where your class has multiple mutually exclusive threaded operations, you don't want to lock on "this" or you have unnecessary contention. That is like having one red light for 2 non-overlapping intersections.

Using POCO Types in a workflow

I am working with WF4 and need to use Types I created before, in a Workflow, but I'm not sure of my strategy.
I have a class:
class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
{
//Constructor Logic
}
public void Connect()
{
//Connect to a TCP/Device for example
}
public void Disconnect()
{
//Disconnect from a TCP/Device for example
}
}
and i want to use it in a WF4 Flowchart or StateMachine.
Then i have my main application:
class Program
{
private MyClass myObject;
WorkflowApplication WorkflowApplicationHoster;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
myObject = new MyClass;
IDictionary<string,object> input = new Dictionary<string,object>() {{"MyClassInstance",myObject} };
WorkflowApplicationHoster = new WorkflowApplication(new MyWorkflow,input);
WorkflowApplicationHoster.Run();
}
}
In my Workflow i have the "InArgument" -> "MyClassInstance" which is a MyClass Type and i use it for the whole workflow.
This doesn't feel correct. How to use own classe with the WF4?

OK -- so if I'm understanding this properly what you're trying to understand is how to get a new instance of your type into the workflow so it can be used. Generally speaking I've always been able to simply declare a variable and initialize it in some manner, but the question becomes what kind of initialization do you need?
If you just need to create a new instance of it, like shown above, then declare a variable of your type and in the Default Value issue the New {TypeName}() to create a new instance.
However, you're going to need to provide a lot more information if this doesn't help.

You want to use that MyClass instance in global scope; is how I read this.
One popular way is to create it as a Singleton. Generally this means you have a private/protected constructor and a public Instance method that ensures that one and only one instance is ever created.
Another way is to make the class, and thus all it's methods, static.
There are multiple threads in StackOverflow on the topic of these approaches. Additionally, it seems the real argument is whether to have something in global scope or not, not necessarily how that's implemented.

C# Variable Scope stopping me in my tracks

I'm fairly new to programming. The the constant issue I keep facing when I try anything for myself in C based languages is the scope.
Is there any way to use or modify a variable from within a different method or class? Is there also a way to do this without creating a new intance of a class or object? It seems to wipe the slate clean every time.
Example, I'm setting up a console text game, and I want a different background message to write to the console at certain intervals.
public static void OnTimedEvent(object scource, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if(Exposition.Narration == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine("The bar is hot and muggy");
}
if (Exposition.Narration == 2)
{
Console.WriteLine("You see someone stealing beer from the counter");
}
if (Exposition.Narration == 3)
{
Console.WriteLine("There is a strange smell here");
}
}
But I have no way of making different messages play. If I create the variable from within the method it will send that variable to its defult everytime it runs. If I create a new instance of an object or a class, it sends things back to the defult as well. Also, I can't modify a single class when I'm creating new instances of them all the time.
That's just one example of where its been a problem. Is there a way to have a varable with a broader scope? Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?
edit:
To put it simply can I read or change a variable from within a different method or class?
using System;
namespace Examp
{
class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int number = 2;
other();
}
public static void other()
{
if (Main.number == 2)
{
number = 3
}
}
}
}

While I don't think I understood completely your question, you can see here some ways to make a variable "persist" outside a method:
Static variables
Static variables are something like a global variable. You can see them through all the program if you set them as public (if you set them as internal, it's different).
A static variable can be defined as:
class MyClass
{
static int MyVariable = 4;
}
....somewhere...
void MyMethod()
{
MyClass.MyVariable = 234;
}
As you can see, you can access them anywhere.
Variables on heap
If you create an object with new operator, if you keep reference to that object, every modify you do on it, it reflects on all references to that object that you have. For example
class MyClass
{
int X;
}
static class Program
{
static void Main(string args[])
{
MyClass a = new MyClass();
a.X = 40;
Method1(a);
Method2(a);
Console.WriteLine(a.X.ToString()); // This will print 32
}
static void Method1(MyClass c)
{
c.X = 10;
}
static void Method2(MyClass c)
{
c.X = 32;
}
}
You can even use refs to edit your variables inside a method
Basically you misunderstood the concept of "scope", because you question is "which variable types exist" (global/static/local etc.). What you would like to know about scope is this: A local variable exists only within { } where it's defined.
I hope this gives you some suggestion. The answer is definitely not complete but can give you an idea.
Try to be more specific so I can change my answer.
Answer to edit 1:
No you can't change a variable in the way you want, you must add it to the class (Program in this case), try adding:
class Program
{
static int number;
....
}
Obviusly you should remove the one inside the Main method.
Also note that int can't be modified (except without a ref) inside a function if you pass them as parameters because they are copied.
The reason is quite simple: a reference to a Class instance is (at least) the same size as an int (if we are speaking about 32/64 bit systems), so it takes the same time copying it or referencing it.
You can return a value from a method after you have done your calculations if you want, like this:
int x = 3;
x = DoSomethingWithX(x);
int DoSomethingWithX(int x)
{
x += 30;
}

Class access modifiers allow you to control the members that you want the class to expose to other classes. Furthermore, static class with singleton pattern allow use to reuse the same instance across your application.
Looking at your example, it appears that you are simply trying to read the class member, hence a public property in your class should suffice. The instance of this class can be passed while initializing the class in which your OnTimedEvent method is present (this method should be changed to an instance method to access non static members of the your class).
For example,
class MyClass
{
private Exposition exposition;
// Option 1: Use parametrized constructor
// Pass the instance reference of the other class while
// constructing the object
public MyClass(Exposition exposition)
{
this.exposition = exposition;
}
// Option 2: Use an initialize method
public void Initialize(Exposition exposition)
{
this.exposition = exposition;
}
// Remove static to access instance members
public void OnTimedEvent(object scource, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
// Better to use an enumeration/switch instead of magic constants
switch(exposition.Narration)
{
case HotAndMuggy:
Console.WriteLine("The bar is hot and muggy");;
break;
...
}
}
// Option 3: Use static properties of the Exposition class
// Note this approach should be used only if your application demands
// only one instance of the class to be created
public static void OnTimedEvent_Static(object scource, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
// Better to use an enumeration/switch instead of magic constants
switch(Exposition.Narration)
{
case HotAndMuggy:
Console.WriteLine("The bar is hot and muggy");;
break;
...
}
}
}

Multi-Threading Question - adding an Element to a static List

Okay, newbie multi-threading question:
I have a Singleton class. The class has a Static List and essentially works like this:
class MyClass {
private static MyClass _instance;
private static List<string> _list;
private static bool IsRecording;
public static void StartRecording() {
_list = new List<string>();
IsRecording = true;
}
public static IEnumerable<string> StopRecording() {
IsRecording = false;
return new List<string>(_list).AsReadOnly();
}
public MyClass GetInstance(){
}
public void DoSomething(){
if(IsRecording) _list.Add("Something");
}
}
Basically a user can call StartRecording() to initialize a List and then all calls to an instance-method may add stuff to the list. However, multiple threads may hold an instance to MyClass, so multiple threads may add entries to the list.
However, both list creation and reading are single operations, so the usual Reader-Writer Problem in multi-threading situations does not apply. The only problem I could see is the insertion order being weird, but that is not a problem.
Can I leave the code as-is, or do I need to take any precautions for multi-threading? I should add that in the real application this is not a List of strings but a List of Custom Objects (so the code is _list.Add(new Object(somedata))), but these objects only hold data, no code besides a call to DateTime.Now.
Edit: Clarifications following some answers: DoSomething cannot be static (the class here is abbreviated, there is a lot of stuff going on that is using instance-variables, but these created by the constructor and then only read).
Is it good enough to do
lock(_list){
_list.Add(something);
}
and
lock(_list){
return new List<string>(_list).AsReadOnly();
}
or do I need some deeper magic?

You certainly must lock the _list. And since you are creating multiple instances for _list you can not lock on _list itself but you should use something like:
private static object _listLock = new object();
As an aside, to follow a few best practices:
DoSomething(), as shown, can be static and so it should be.
for Library classes the recommended pattern is to make static members thread-safe, that would apply to StartRecording(), StopRecording() and DoSomething().
I would also make StopRecording() set _list = null and check it for null in DoSomething().
And before you ask, all this takes so little time that there really are no performance reasons not to do it.

You need to lock the list if multiple threads are adding to it.
A few observations...
Maybe there's a reason not to, but I would suggest making the class static and hence all of its members static. There's no real reason, at least from what you've shown, to require clients of MyClass to call the GetInstance() method just so they can call an instance method, DoSomething() in this case.
I don't see what prevents someone from calling the StartRecording() method multiple times. You might consider putting a check in there so that if it is already recording you don't create a new list, pulling the rug out from everyone's feet.
Finally, when you lock the list, don't do it like this:
static object _sync = new object();
lock(_sync){
_list.Add(new object(somedata));
}
Minimize the amount of time spent inside the lock by moving the new object creation outside of the lock.
static object _sync = new object();
object data = new object(somedata);
lock(_sync){
_list.Add(data);
}
EDIT
You said that DoSomething() cannot be static, but I bet it can. You can still use an object of MyClass inside DoSomething() for any instance-related stuff you have to do. But from a programming usability perspective, don't require the users to MyClass to call GetInstance() first. Consider this:
class MyClass {
private static MyClass _instance;
private static List<string> _list;
private static bool IsRecording;
public static void StartRecording()
{
_list = new List<string>();
IsRecording = true;
}
public static IEnumerable<string> StopRecording()
{
IsRecording = false;
return new List<string>(_list).AsReadOnly();
}
private static MyClass GetInstance() // make this private, not public
{ return _instance; }
public static void DoSomething()
{
// use inst internally to the function to get access to instance variables
MyClass inst = GetInstance();
}
}
Doing this, the users of MyClass can go from
MyClass.GetInstance().DoSomething();
to
MyClass.DoSomething();

.NET collections are not fully thread-safe. From MSDN: "Multiple readers can read the collection with confidence; however, any modification to the collection produces undefined results for all threads that access the collection, including the reader threads." You can follow the suggestions on that MSDN page to make your accesses thread-safe.
One problem that you would probably run into with your current code is if StopRecording is called while some other thread is inside DoSomething. Since creating a new list from an existing one requires enumerating over it, you are likely to run into the old "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute" problem.
The bottom line: practice safe threading!

It's possible, albeit tricky, to write a linked list that allows simultaneous insertions from multiple threads without a lock, but this isn't it. It's just not safe to call _list.Add in parallel and hope for the best. Depending how it's written, you could lose one or both values, or corrupt the entire structure. Just lock it.

C# thread safety of global configuration settings

In a C# app, suppose I have a single global class that contains some configuration items, like so :
public class Options
{
int myConfigInt;
string myConfigString;
..etc.
}
static Options GlobalOptions;
the members of this class will be uses across different threads :
Thread1: GlobalOptions.myConfigString = blah;
while
Thread2: string thingie = GlobalOptions.myConfigString;
Using a lock for access to the GlobalOptions object would also unnecessary block when 2 threads are accessing different members, but on the other hand creating a sync-object for every member seems a bit over the top too.
Also, using a lock on the global options would make my code less nice I think;
if I have to write
string stringiwanttouse;
lock(GlobalOptions)
{
stringiwanttouse = GlobalOptions.myConfigString;
}
everywhere (and is this thread-safe or is stringiwanttouse now just a pointer to myConfigString ? Yeah, I'm new to C#....) instead of
string stringiwanttouse = GlobalOptions.myConfigString;
it makes the code look horrible.
So...
What is the best (and simplest!) way to ensure thread-safety ?

You could wrap the field in question (myConfigString in this case) in a Property, and have code in the Get/Set that uses either a Monitor.Lock or a Mutex. Then, accessing the property only locks that single field, and doesn't lock the whole class.
Edit: adding code
private static object obj = new object(); // only used for locking
public static string MyConfigString {
get {
lock(obj)
{
return myConfigstring;
}
}
set {
lock(obj)
{
myConfigstring = value;
}
}
}

The following was written before the OP's edit:
public static class Options
{
private static int _myConfigInt;
private static string _myConfigString;
private static bool _initialized = false;
private static object _locker = new object();
private static void InitializeIfNeeded()
{
if (!_initialized) {
lock (_locker) {
if (!_initialized) {
ReadConfiguration();
_initalized = true;
}
}
}
}
private static void ReadConfiguration() { // ... }
public static int MyConfigInt {
get {
InitializeIfNeeded();
return _myConfigInt;
}
}
public static string MyConfigString {
get {
InitializeIfNeeded();
return _myConfigstring;
}
}
//..etc.
}
After that edit, I can say that you should do something like the above, and only set configuration in one place - the configuration class. That way, it will be the only class modifying the configuration at runtime, and only when a configuration option is to be retrieved.

Your configurations may be 'global', but they should not be exposed as a global variable. If configurations don't change, they should be used to construct the objects that need the information - either manually or through a factory object. If they can change, then an object that watches the configuration file/database/whatever and implements the Observer pattern should be used.
Global variables (even those that happen to be a class instance) are a Bad Thing™

What do you mean by thread safety here? It's not the global object that needs to be thread safe, it is the accessing code. If two threads write to a member variable near the same instant, one of them will "win", but is that a problem? If your client code depends on the global value staying constant until it is done with some unit of processing, then you will need to create a synchronization object for each property that needs to be locked. There isn't any great way around that. You could just cache a local copy of the value to avoid problems, but the applicability of that fix will depend on your circumstances. Also, I wouldn't create a synch object for each property by default, but instead as you realize you will need it.