Develop Reference

Creating an async resource watcher in c# (service broker queue resource)

Partly as an exercise in exploring async, I though I'd try creating a ServiceBrokerWatcher class. The idea is much the same as a FileSystemWatcher - watch a resource and raise an event when something happens. I was hoping to do this with async rather than actually creating a thread, because the nature of the beast means that most of the time it is just waiting on a SQL waitfor (receive ...) statement. This seemed like an ideal use of async.
I have written code which "works", in that when I send a message through broker, the class notices it and fires off the appropriate event. I thought this was super neat.
But I suspect I have gotten something fundamentally wrong somewhere in my understanding of what is going on, because when I try to stop the watcher it doesn't behave as I expect.
First a brief overview of the components, and then the actual code:
I have a stored procedure which issues a waitfor (receive...) and returns a result set to the client when a message is received.
There is a Dictionary<string, EventHandler> which maps message type names (in the result set) to the appropriate event handler. For simplicity I only have the one message type in the example.
The watcher class has an async method which loops "forever" (until cancellation is requested), which contains the execution of the procedure and the raising of the events.
So, what's the problem? Well, I tried hosting my class in a simple winforms application, and when I hit a button to call the StopListening() method (see below), execution isn't cancelled right away as I thought it would be. The line listener?.Wait(10000) will in fact wait for 10 seconds (or however long I set the timeout). If I watch what happens with SQL profiler I can see that the attention event is being sent "straight away", but still the function does not exit.
I have added comments to the code starting with "!" where I suspect I have misunderstood something.
So, main question: Why isn't my ListenAsync method "honoring" my cancellation request?
Additionally, am I right in thinking that this program is (most of the time) consuming only one thread? Have I done anything dangerous?
Code follows, I tried to cut it down as much as I could:
// class members //////////////////////
private readonly SqlConnection sqlConnection;
private CancellationTokenSource cts;
private readonly CancellationToken ct;
private Task listener;
private readonly Dictionary<string, EventHandler> map;
public void StartListening()
{
if (listener == null)
{
cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ct = cts.Token;
// !I suspect assigning the result of the method to a Task is wrong somehow...
listener = ListenAsync(ct);
}
}
public void StopListening()
{
try
{
cts.Cancel();
listener?.Wait(10000); // !waits the whole 10 seconds for some reason
} catch (Exception) {
// trap the exception sql will raise when execution is cancelled
} finally
{
listener = null;
}
}
private async Task ListenAsync(CancellationToken ct)
{
using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("events.dequeue_target", sqlConnection))
using (CancellationTokenRegistration ctr = ct.Register(cmd.Cancel)) // !necessary?
{
cmd.CommandTimeout = 0;
while (!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var events = new List<string>();
using (var rdr = await cmd.ExecuteReaderAsync(ct))
{
while (rdr.Read())
{
events.Add(rdr.GetString(rdr.GetOrdinal("message_type_name")));
}
}
foreach (var handler in events.Join(map, e => e, m => m.Key, (e, m) => m.Value))
{
if (handler != null && !ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
handler(this, null);
}
}
}
}
}

You don't show how you've bound it to the WinForms app, but if you are using regular void button1click methods, you may be running into this issue.
So your code will run fine in a console app (it does when I try it) but deadlock when called via the UI thread.
I'd suggest changing your controller class to expose async start and stop methods, and call them via e.g.:
private async void btStart_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await controller.StartListeningAsync();
}
private async void btStop_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await controller.StopListeningAsync();
}

Peter had the right answer. I was confused for several minutes about what was deadlocking, but then I had my forehead slapping moment. It is the continuation of ListenAsync after the ExecuteReaderAsync is cancelled, because it's just a task, not a thread of its own. That was, after all, the whole point!
Then I wondered... OK, what if I tell the async part of ListenAsync() that it doesn't need the UI thread. I will call ExecuteReaderAsync(ct) with .ConfigureAwait(false)! Aha! Now the class methods don't have to be async anymore, because in StopListening() I can just listener.Wait(10000), the wait will continue the task internally on a different thread, and the consumer is none the wiser. Oh boy, so clever.
But no, I can't do that. Not in a webforms application at least. If I do that then the textbox is not updated. And the reason for that seems clear enough: the guts of ListenAsync invoke an event handler, and that event handler is a function which wants to update text in a textbox - which no doubt has to happen on the UI thread. So it doesn't deadlock, but it also can't update the UI. If I set a breakpoint in the handler which wants to update the UI the line of code is hit, but the UI can't be changed.
So in the end it seems the only solution in this case is indeed to "go async all the way down". Or in this case, up!
I was hoping that I didn't have to do that. The fact that the internals of my Watcher are using async methodologies rather than just spawning a thread is, in my mind, an "implementation detail" that the caller shouldn't have to care about. But a FileSystemWatcher has exactly the same issue (the need to control.Invoke if you want to update a GUI based on a watcher event), so that's not so bad. If I was a consumer that had to choose between using async or using Invoke, I'd choose async!

C# Firing events within the thread they are added

Consider two classes; Producer and Consumer (the same as classical pattern, each with their own threads). Is it possible for Producer to have an Event which Consumer can register to and when the producer triggers the event, the consumer's event handler is run in its own thread? Here are my assumptions:
Consumer does not know if the Producer's event is triggered
within his own thread or another.
Neither Producer nor Consumer are descendants of Control so they don't have
BeginInvoke method inherited.
PS. I'm not trying to implement Producer - Consumer pattern. These are two simple classes which I'm trying to refactor the producer so it incorporates threads.
[UPDATE]
To further expand my problem, I'm trying to wrap a hardware driver to be worked with in the simplest way possible. For instance my wrapper will have a StateChanged event which the main application will register to so it will be notified when hardware is disconnected. As the actual driver has no means other than polling to check its presence , I will need to start a thread to check it periodically. Once it is not available anymore I will trigger the event which needs to be executed in the same thread as it was added. I know this is a classical Producer-Consumer pattern but since I'm trying to simplify using my driver-wrapper, I don't want the user code to implement consumer.
[UPDATE]
Due to some comments suggesting that there's no solution to this problem, I would like to add few lines which might change their minds. Considering the BeginInvoke can do what I want, so it shouldn't be impossible (at least in theory). Implementing my own BeginInvoke and calling it within the Producer is one way to look at it. It's just that I don't know how BeginInvoke does it!

You want to do inter thread communication. Yes it is possible.
Use System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.threading.dispatcher.aspx
The Dispatcher maintains a prioritized queue of work items for a specific thread.
When a Dispatcher is created on a thread, it becomes the only Dispatcher that can be associated with the thread, even if the Dispatcher is shut down.
If you attempt to get the CurrentDispatcher for the current thread and a Dispatcher is not associated with the thread, a Dispatcher will be created. A Dispatcher is also created when you create a DispatcherObject. If you create a Dispatcher on a background thread, be sure to shut down the dispatcher before exiting the thread.

Yes there is a way to do this. It relies on using the SynchronizationContext class (docs). The sync context abstracts the operations of sending messages from one thread to another via the methods Send (synchronous for the calling thread) and Post(async for the calling thread).
Let's take a slightly simpler situation where you only want the capture one sync context, the context of the "creator" thread. You would do something like this:
using System.Threading;
class HardwareEvents
{
private SynchronizationContext context;
private Timer timer;
public HardwareEvents()
{
context = SynchronizationContext.Current ?? new SynchronizationContext();
timer = new Timer(TimerMethod, null, 0, 1000); // start immediately, 1 sec interval.
}
private void TimerMethod(object state)
{
bool hardwareStateChanged = GetHardwareState();
if (hardwareStateChanged)
context.Post(s => StateChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty), null);
}
public event EventHandler StateChanged;
private bool GetHardwareState()
{
// do something to get the state here.
return true;
}
}
Now, the creating thread's sync context will be used when events are invoked. If the creating thread was a UI thread it will have a sync context supplied by the framework. If there is no sync context, then the default implementation is used, which invokes on the thread pool. SynchronizationContext is a class that you can subclass if you want to provide a custom way to send a message from the producer to the consumer thread. Just override Post and Send to send said message.
If you wanted every event subscriber to get called back on their own thread, you would have to capture the sync context in the add method. You then hold on to pairs of sync contexts and delegates. Then when raising the event, you would loop through the sync context / delegate pairs and Post each one in turn.
There are several other ways you could improve this. For example, you may want to suspend polling the hardware if there no subscribers to the event. Or you might want to back off your polling frequency if the hardware does not respond.

First, please note that in .NET / the Base Class Library, it is usually the event subscriber's obligation to ensure that its callback code is executing on the correct thread. That makes it easy for the event producer: it may just trigger its event without having to care about any thread affinities of its various subscribers.
Here's a complete example step-by-step of a possible implementation.
Let's start with something simple: The Producer class and its event, Event. My example won't include how and when this event gets triggered:
class Producer
{
public event EventHandler Event; // raised e.g. with `Event(this, EventArgs.Empty);`
}
Next, we want to be able to subscribe our Consumer instances to this event and be called back on a specific thread (I'll call this kind of thread a "worker thread"):
class Consumer
{
public void SubscribeToEventOf(Producer producer, WorkerThread targetWorkerThread) {…}
}
How do we implement this?
First, we need the means to "send" code to a specific worker thread. Since there is no way to force a thread to execute a particular method whenever you want it to, you must arrange for a worker thread to explicitly wait for work items. One way to do this is via a work item queue. Here's a possible implementation for WorkerThread:
sealed class WorkerThread
{
public WorkerThread()
{
this.workItems = new Queue<Action>();
this.workItemAvailable = new AutoResetEvent(initialState: false);
new Thread(ProcessWorkItems) { IsBackground = true }.Start();
}
readonly Queue<Action> workItems;
readonly AutoResetEvent workItemAvailable;
public void QueueWorkItem(Action workItem)
{
lock (workItems) // this is not extensively tested btw.
{
workItems.Enqueue(workItem);
}
workItemAvailable.Set();
}
void ProcessWorkItems()
{
for (;;)
{
workItemAvailable.WaitOne();
Action workItem;
lock (workItems) // dito, not extensively tested.
{
workItem = workItems.Dequeue();
if (workItems.Count > 0) workItemAvailable.Set();
}
workItem.Invoke();
}
}
}
This class basically starts a thread, and puts it in an infinite loop that falls asleep (WaitOne) until an item arrives in its queue (workItems). Once that happens, the item — an Action — is dequeued and invoked. Then the thread goes to sleep again (WaitOne)) until another item is available in the queue.
Actions are put in the queue via the QueueWorkItem method. So essentially we can now send code to be executed to a specific WorkerThread instance by calling that method. We're now ready to implement Customer.SubscribeToEventOf:
class Consumer
{
public void SubscribeToEventOf(Producer producer, WorkerThread targetWorkerThread)
{
producer.Event += delegate(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
targetWorkerThread.QueueWorkItem(() => OnEvent(sender, e));
};
}
protected virtual void OnEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// this code is executed on the worker thread(s) passed to `Subscribe…`.
}
}
Voilà!
P.S. (not discussed in detail): As an add-on, you could package the method of sending code to WorkerThread using a standard .NET mechanism called a SynchronizationContext:
sealed class WorkerThreadSynchronizationContext : SynchronizationContext
{
public WorkerThreadSynchronizationContext(WorkerThread workerThread)
{
this.workerThread = workerThread;
}
private readonly WorkerThread workerThread;
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
workerThread.QueueWorkItem(() => d(state));
}
// other overrides for `Send` etc. omitted
}
And at the beginning of WorkerThread.ProcessWorkItems, you'd set the synchronization context for that particular thread as follows:
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(
new WorkerThreadSynchronizationContext(this));

I posted earlier that I've been there, and that there is no nice solution.
However, I just stumbled upon something I have done in another context before: you could instantiate a timer (that is, Windows.Forms.Timer) when you create your wrapper object. This timer will post all Tick events to the ui thread.
Now if you're device polling logic is non-blocking and fast, you could implement it directly inside the timer Tick event, and raise your custom event there.
Otherwise, you could continue to do the polling logic inside a thread, and instead of firing the event inside the thread, you just flip some boolean variable which gets read by the timer every 10 ms, who then fires the event.
Note that this solution still requires that the object is created from the GUI thread, but at least the user of the object will not have to worry about Invoke.

It is possible. One typical approach is to use the BlockingCollection class. This data structure works like a normal queue except that the dequeue operation blocks the calling thread if the queue is empty. The produce will queue items by calling Add and the consumer will dequeue them by calling Take. The consumer typically runs it's own dedicated thread spinning an infinite loop waiting for items to appear in the queue. This is, more or less, how the message loop on the UI thread operates and is the basis for getting the Invoke and BeginInvoke operations to accomplish the marshaling behavior.
public class Consumer
{
private BlockingCollection<Action> queue = new BlockingCollection<Action>();
public Consumer()
{
var thread = new Thread(
() =>
{
while (true)
{
Action method = queue.Take();
method();
}
});
thread.Start();
}
public void BeginInvoke(Action method)
{
queue.Add(item);
}
}

Turn asynchronous calls into synchronous

Is there any good practice (pattern) in turning asynchronous calls into synchronous?
I have a third party library who's methods are all asynchronos, to get result of almoust any method you must listen to an event, which will bring some context with it.
basically it looks like:
service.BeginSomething(...);
service.OnBeginSomethingCompleted += ;
what I need is to execute some code after BeginSomething when it is really complete (thus after OnBeginSomethingCompleted is triggered). It is very inconvinient to handle the response in the event.
The only way I could think of is running a Thread.Sleep loop and wait till some field on the form is updated, but it doesn't look like very elegant sollution.
I'm using .net 4.0.

You could subclass the main class and provide a synchronous version of the operation. If subclassing is not an option you could create an extension method. Here is how things might look.
public class Subclass : BaseClass
{
public void Something()
{
using (var complete = new ManualResetEventSlim(false))
{
EventHandler handler = (sender, args) => { complete.Set(); };
base.OnBeginSomethingCompleted += handler;
try
{
base.BeginSomething();
complete.Wait();
}
finally
{
base.OnBeginSomethingCompleted -= handler;
}
}
}
}
Update:
One thing I should have pointed out is that this could be problematic in some cases. Consider this example.
var x = new Subclass();
x.BeginSomething();
x.Something();
It should be obvious that the handler in Something could receive the OnBeginSomethingCompleted event from the previous call to BeginSomething. Make sure you guard against this somehow.

Use a ManualResetEvent. In your sync wrapper create it, then pass it to the service.BeginSomething() call as part of the state object. Immediately after the call, WaitOne() on it, this will block.
In the service.OnBeginSomethingCompleted event extract it from the state object and set it, this will unblock the sync caller.

As other said, if possible you should try to make your own code async. If that won't work, does your third-party library support the standard BeginXXX, EndXXX async pattern? If so, then using the TPL would make things easy for you. Your code will look something like this:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
...
var task = Task<TResult>.Factory.FromAsync(
service.BeginSomething, service.EndSomething, arg1, arg2, ..., null);
task.Wait();
var result = task.Result;
The specific overload you'll want to use will depend on how many parameters you need to pass. You can see the list here.

If BeginSomething() returns an IAsyncResult (like a delegate's .BeginInvoke would do), you can get the WaitHandle from that:
service.OnBeginSomethingCompleted += ;
var asyncResult = service.BeginSomething();
asyncResult.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(); // Blocks until process is complete
By the way, by assigning the event handler after starting the async process, you are introducing a race condition where the async call may complete before the event is registered, causing it to never fire.

You might want to look at Reactive Extensions
With Rx you can wrap that into an 'event' basically - the do something like someClass.SomeEvent.Subscribe(d=>...) to subscribe using usually some lambda expression to handle what you need. Also use ObserveOn to handle it on the GUI thread (see the details, this is just a hint).
Other option is to use async await (which is now available for use with VS 2010).
hope this helps
NOTE: Rx have a native support for async methods and turning them into Rx events with pretty much just one call. Take a look at Observable.FromAsyncPattern FromAsyncPattern

The general trend of modern software development (on Windows platform too) is to run, what is possible asynchroniously.
Actually from Windows8 software design guidelines, if the code runs more then 50ms, it has to be asynchronious.
So I would not suggest to block the thread, but instead benefit from that library and provide to the user with some nice looking animation saying "wait, responce comming", or something like this, or some progress bar.
In short, do not block thread, notify a user about what is going on in app and leave it async.

This solution is similar to Brian Gideon's, but I think a little bit cleaner for what you're trying to do. It uses the Monitor object to cause the calling thread to wait until the Completed event is triggered.
public class SomeClass : BaseClass
{
public void ExecuteSomethingAndWaitTillDone()
{
// Set up the handler to signal when we're done
service.OnBeginSomethingCompleted += OnCompleted;
// Invoke the asynchronous method.
service.BeginSomething(...);
// Now wait until the event occurs
lock (_synchRoot)
{
// This waits until Monitor.Pulse is called
Monitor.Wait(_synchRoot);
}
}
// This handler is called when BeginSomething completes
private void OnCompleted(object source, ...)
{
// Signal to the original thread that it can continue
lock (_synchRoot)
{
// This lets execution continue on the original thread
Monitor.Pulse(_synchRoot);
}
}
private readonly Object _synchRoot = new Object();
}

C# threading pattern that will let me flush

I have a class that implements the Begin/End Invocation pattern where I initially used ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem() to thread my work. The work done on the thread doesn't loop but does takes a bit of time to process so the work itself is not easily stopped.
I now have the side effect where someone using my class is calling the Begin (with callback) a ton of times to do a lot of processing so ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem is creating a ton of threads to do the processing. That in itself isn't bad but there are instances where they want to abandon the processing and start a new process but they are forced to wait for their first request to finish.
Since ThreadPool.QueueUseWorkItem() doesn't allow me to cancel the threads I am trying to come up with a better way to queue up the work and maybe use an explicit FlushQueue() method in my class to allow the caller to abandon work in my queue.
Anyone have any suggestion on a threading pattern that fits my needs?
Edit: I'm currently targeting the 2.0 framework. I'm currently thinking that a Consumer/Producer queue might work. Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of flushing the queue?
Edit 2 Problem Clarification:
Since I'm using the Begin/End pattern in my class every time the caller uses the Begin with callback I create a whole new thread on the thread pool. This call does a very small amount of processing and is not where I want to cancel. It's the uncompleted jobs in the queue I wish to stop.
The fact that the ThreadPool will create 250 threads per processor by default means if you ask the ThreadPool to queue a large amount of items with QueueUserWorkItem() you end up creating a huge amount of concurrent threads that you have no way of stopping.
The caller is able to push the CPU to 100% with not only the work but the creation of the work because of the way I queued the threads.
I was thinking by using the Producer/Consumer pattern I could queue these threads into my own queue that would allow me to moderate how many threads I create to avoid the CPU spike creating all the concurrent threads. And that I might be able to allow the caller of my class to flush all the jobs in the queue when they are abandoning the requests.
I am currently trying to implement this myself but figured SO was a good place to have someone say look at this code or you won't be able to flush because of this or flushing isn't the right term you mean this.

EDIT My answer does not apply since OP is using 2.0. Leaving up and switching to CW for anyone who reads this question and using 4.0
If you are using C# 4.0, or can take a depedency on one of the earlier version of the parallel frameworks, you can use their built-in cancellation support. It's not as easy as cancelling a thread but the framework is much more reliable (cancelling a thread is very attractive but also very dangerous).
Reed did an excellent article on this you should take a look at
http://reedcopsey.com/2010/02/17/parallelism-in-net-part-10-cancellation-in-plinq-and-the-parallel-class/

A method I've used in the past, though it's certainly not a best practice is to dedicate a class instance to each thread, and have an abort flag on the class. Then create a ThrowIfAborting method on the class that is called periodically from the thread (particularly if the thread's running a loop, just call it every iteration). If the flag has been set, ThrowIfAborting will simply throw an exception, which is caught in the main method for the thread. Just make sure to clean up your resources as you're aborting.

You could extend the Begin/End pattern to become the Begin/Cancel/End pattern. The Cancel method could set a cancel flag that the worker thread polls periodically. When the worker thread detects a cancel request, it can stop its work, clean-up resources as needed, and report that the operation was canceled as part of the End arguments.

I've solved what I believe to be your exact problem by using a wrapper class around 1+ BackgroundWorker instances.
Unfortunately, I'm not able to post my entire class, but here's the basic concept along with it's limitations.
Usage:
You simply create an instance and call RunOrReplace(...) when you want to cancel your old worker and start a new one. If the old worker was busy, it is asked to cancel and then another worker is used to immediately execute your request.
public class BackgroundWorkerReplaceable : IDisposable
{
BackgroupWorker activeWorker = null;
object activeWorkerSyncRoot = new object();
List<BackgroupWorker> workerPool = new List<BackgroupWorker>();
DoWorkEventHandler doWork;
RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler runWorkerCompleted;
public bool IsBusy
{
get { return activeWorker != null ? activeWorker.IsBusy; : false }
}
public BackgroundWorkerReplaceable(DoWorkEventHandler doWork, RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler runWorkerCompleted)
{
this.doWork = doWork;
this.runWorkerCompleted = runWorkerCompleted;
ResetActiveWorker();
}
public void RunOrReplace(Object param, ...) // Overloads could include ProgressChangedEventHandler and other stuff
{
try
{
lock(activeWorkerSyncRoot)
{
if(activeWorker.IsBusy)
{
ResetActiveWorker();
}
// This works because if IsBusy was false above, there is no way for it to become true without another thread obtaining a lock
if(!activeWorker.IsBusy)
{
// Optionally handle ProgressChangedEventHandler and other features (under the lock!)
// Work on this new param
activeWorker.RunWorkerAsync(param);
}
else
{ // This should never happen since we create new workers when there's none available!
throw new LogicException(...); // assert or similar
}
}
}
catch(...) // InvalidOperationException and Exception
{ // In my experience, it's safe to just show the user an error and ignore these, but that's going to depend on what you use this for and where you want the exception handling to be
}
}
public void Cancel()
{
ResetActiveWorker();
}
public void Dispose()
{ // You should implement a proper Dispose/Finalizer pattern
if(activeWorker != null)
{
activeWorker.CancelAsync();
}
foreach(BackgroundWorker worker in workerPool)
{
worker.CancelAsync();
worker.Dispose();
// perhaps use a for loop instead so you can set worker to null? This might help the GC, but it's probably not needed
}
}
void ResetActiveWorker()
{
lock(activeWorkerSyncRoot)
{
if(activeWorker == null)
{
activeWorker = GetAvailableWorker();
}
else if(activeWorker.IsBusy)
{ // Current worker is busy - issue a cancel and set another active worker
activeWorker.CancelAsync(); // Make sure WorkerSupportsCancellation must be set to true [Link9372]
// Optionally handle ProgressEventHandler -=
activeWorker = GetAvailableWorker(); // Ensure that the activeWorker is available
}
//else - do nothing, activeWorker is already ready for work!
}
}
BackgroupdWorker GetAvailableWorker()
{
// Loop through workerPool and return a worker if IsBusy is false
// if the loop exits without returning...
if(activeWorker != null)
{
workerPool.Add(activeWorker); // Save the old worker for possible future use
}
return GenerateNewWorker();
}
BackgroundWorker GenerateNewWorker()
{
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true; // [Link9372]
//worker.WorkerReportsProgress
worker.DoWork += doWork;
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += runWorkerCompleted;
// Other stuff
return worker;
}
} // class
Pro/Con:
This has the benefit of having a very low delay in starting your new execution, since new threads don't have to wait for old ones to finish.
This comes at the cost of a theoretical never-ending growth of BackgroundWorker objects that never get GC'd. However, in practice the code below attempts to recycle old workers so you shouldn't normally encounter a large pool of ideal threads. If you are worried about this because of how you plan to use this class, you could implement a Timer which fires a CleanUpExcessWorkers(...) method, or have ResetActiveWorker() do this cleanup (at the cost of a longer RunOrReplace(...) delay).
The main cost from using this is precisely why it's beneficial - it doesn't wait for the previous thread to exit, so for example, if DoWork is performing a database call and you execute RunOrReplace(...) 10 times in rapid succession, the database call might not be immediately canceled when the thread is - so you'll have 10 queries running, making all of them slow! This generally tends to work fine with Oracle, causing only minor delays, but I do not have experiences with other databases (to speed up the cleanup, I have the canceled worker tell Oracle to cancel the command). Proper use of the EventArgs described below mostly solves this.
Another minor cost is that whatever code this BackgroundWorker is performing must be compatible with this concept - it must be able to safely recover from being canceled. The DoWorkEventArgs and RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs have a Cancel/Cancelled property which you should use. For example, if you do Database calls in the DoWork method (mainly what I use this class for), you need to make sure you periodically check these properties and take perform the appropriate clean-up.

Is it possible to put an event handler on a different thread to the caller?

Lets say I have a component called Tasking (that I cannot modify) which exposes a method “DoTask” that does some possibly lengthy calculations and returns the result in via an event TaskCompleted. Normally this is called in a windows form that the user closes after she gets the results.
In my particular scenario I need to associate some data (a database record) with the data returned in TaskCompleted and use that to update the database record.
I’ve investigated the use of AutoResetEvent to notify when the event is handled. The problem with that is AutoResetEvent.WaitOne() will block and the event handler will never get called. Normally AutoResetEvents is called be a separate thread, so I guess that means that the event handler is on the same thread as the method that calls.
Essentially I want to turn an asynchronous call, where the results are returned via an event, into a synchronous call (ie call DoSyncTask from another class) by blocking until the event is handled and the results placed in a location accessible to both the event handler and the method that called the method that started the async call.
public class SyncTask
{
TaskCompletedEventArgs data;
AutoResetEvent taskDone;
public SyncTask()
{
taskDone = new AutoResetEvent(false);
}
public string DoSyncTask(int latitude, int longitude)
{
Task t = new Task();
t.Completed = new TaskCompletedEventHandler(TaskCompleted);
t.DoTask(latitude, longitude);
taskDone.WaitOne(); // but something more like Application.DoEvents(); in WinForms.
taskDone.Reset();
return data.Street;
}
private void TaskCompleted(object sender, TaskCompletedEventArgs e)
{
data = e;
taskDone.Set(); //or some other mechanism to signal to DoSyncTask that the work is complete.
}
}
In a Windows App the following works correctly.
public class SyncTask
{
TaskCompletedEventArgs data;
public SyncTask()
{
taskDone = new AutoResetEvent(false);
}
public string DoSyncTask(int latitude, int longitude)
{
Task t = new Task();
t.Completed = new TaskCompletedEventHandler(TaskCompleted);
t.DoTask(latitude, longitude);
while (data == null) Application.DoEvents();
return data.Street;
}
private void TaskCompleted(object sender, TaskCompletedEventArgs e)
{
data = e;
}
}
I just need to replicate that behaviour in a window service, where Application.Run isn’t called and the ApplicationContext object isn’t available.

I've had some trouble lately with making asynchronous calls and events at threads and returning them to the main thread.
I used SynchronizationContext to keep track of things. The (pseudo)code below shows what is working for me at the moment.
SynchronizationContext context;
void start()
{
//First store the current context
//to call back to it later
context = SynchronizationContext.Current;
//Start a thread and make it call
//the async method, for example:
Proxy.BeginCodeLookup(aVariable,
new AsyncCallback(LookupResult),
AsyncState);
//Now continue with what you were doing
//and let the lookup finish
}
void LookupResult(IAsyncResult result)
{
//when the async function is finished
//this method is called. It's on
//the same thread as the the caller,
//BeginCodeLookup in this case.
result.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
var LookupResult= Proxy.EndCodeLookup(result);
//The SynchronizationContext.Send method
//performs a callback to the thread of the
//context, in this case the main thread
context.Send(new SendOrPostCallback(OnLookupCompleted),
result.AsyncState);
}
void OnLookupCompleted(object state)
{
//now this code will be executed on the
//main thread.
}
I hope this helps, as it fixed the problem for me.

Maybe you could get DoSyncTask to start a timer object that checks for the value of your data variable at some appropriate interval. Once data has a value, you could then have another event fire to tell you that data now has a value (and shut the timer off of course).
Pretty ugly hack, but it could work... in theory.
Sorry, that's the best I can come up with half asleep. Time for bed...

I worked out a solution to the async to sync problem, at least using all .NET classes.
Link
It still doesn't work with COM. I suspect because of STA threading. The Event raised by the .NET component that hosts the COM OCX is never handled by my worker thread, so I get a deadlock on WaitOne().
someone else may appreciate the solution though :)

If Task is a WinForms component, it might be very aware of threading issues and Invoke the event handler on the main thread -- which seems to be what you're seeing.
So, it might be that it relies on a message pump happening or something. Application.Run has overloads that are for non-GUI apps. You might consider getting a thread to startup and pump to see if that fixes the issue.
I'd also recommend using Reflector to get a look at the source code of the component to figure out what it's doing.

You've almost got it. You need the DoTask method to run on a different thread so the WaitOne call won't prevent work from being done. Something like this:
Action<int, int> doTaskAction = t.DoTask;
doTaskAction.BeginInvoke(latitude, longitude, cb => doTaskAction.EndInvoke(cb), null);
taskDone.WaitOne();

My comment on Scott W's answer seems a little cryptic after I re-read it. So let me be more explicit:
while( !done )
{
taskDone.WaitOne( 200 );
Application.DoEvents();
}
The WaitOne( 200 ) will cause it to return control to your UI thread 5 times per second (you can adjust this as you wish). The DoEvents() call will flush the windows event queue (the one that handles all windows event handling like painting, etc.). Add two members to your class (one bool flag "done" in this example, and one return data "street" in your example).
That is the simplest way to get what you want done. (I have very similar code in an app of my own, so I know it works)

Your code is almost right... I just changed
t.DoTask(latitude, longitude);
for
new Thread(() => t.DoTask(latitude, longitude)).Start();
TaskCompleted will be executed in the same thread as DoTask does. This should work.