I am using following code to initiate Jobs.
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
List<Job> foundedJobs = new List<Job>();
public void StartAllJobs()
{
try
{
if (CanExecuteJobs == false) return;
var jobs = GetAllTypesImplementingInterface(typeof(Job)); // get all job implementations of this assembly.
var enumerable = jobs as Type[] ?? jobs.ToArray();
if (jobs != null && enumerable.Any()) // execute each job
{
Job instanceJob = null;
var index = 0;
foreach (var job in enumerable)
{
if (IsRealClass(job)) // only instantiate the job its implementation is "real"
{
try
{
instanceJob = (Job)Activator.CreateInstance(job); // instantiate job by reflection
foundedJobs.Add(instanceJob);
var thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(instanceJob.ExecuteJob))
{
IsBackground = true,
Name = "SID" + index
}; // create thread for this job execution method
thread.Start();// start thread executing the job
threads.Add(thread);
index++;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
App.Logger.Error(ex);
}
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
App.Logger.Error(ex);
}
}
How I can access Job class from thread later in some other class?
What I mean is that we create Thread like this
var thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(instanceJob.ExecuteJob))
{
IsBackground = true,
Name = "SID" + index
};
So can I use thread somehow to access instanceJob?
Thanks!
Threads aren't really associated with any particular class, and its ThreadStart is not exposed, so given a thread, there isn't really a class context to be extracted.
Instead, what it looks like is that you need to create some dictionary with Thread as key, and your job as value. Then, given a Thread instance you can query the dictionary for the associated job instance.
Dictionary<Thread, Job> threads = new Dictionary<Thread, Job>();
List<Job> foundedJobs = new List<Job>();
public void StartAllJobs()
{
try
{
if (CanExecuteJobs == false) return;
var jobs = GetAllTypesImplementingInterface(typeof(Job)); // get all job implementations of this assembly.
var enumerable = jobs as Type[] ?? jobs.ToArray();
if (jobs != null && enumerable.Any()) // execute each job
{
Job instanceJob = null;
var index = 0;
foreach (var job in enumerable)
{
if (IsRealClass(job)) // only instantiate the job its implementation is "real"
{
try
{
instanceJob = (Job)Activator.CreateInstance(job); // instantiate job by reflection
foundedJobs.Add(instanceJob);
var thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(instanceJob.ExecuteJob))
{
IsBackground = true,
Name = "SID" + index
}; // create thread for this job execution method
thread.Start();// start thread executing the job
threads.Add(thread, job);
index++;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
App.Logger.Error(ex);
}
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
App.Logger.Error(ex);
}
}
in other places where you need to get job for a thread do:
job = threads[myThreadInstance]; // Where myThreadInstance is an instance of Thread class...
I would recommend using .NET 4's Task<T> to hold this, instead of using Thread. You can then directly return the Job within the Task<Job>:
public List<Task<Job>> StartAllJobs()
{
if (CanExecuteJobs == false) return;
var jobs = GetAllTypesImplementingInterface(typeof(Job)); // get all job implementations of this assembly.
return jobs.Where(IsRealClass)
.Select(job => (Job)Activator.CreateInstance(job))
.Select(job => Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { job.ExecuteJob(); return job; }))
.ToList();
}
This will give you a list of Tasks that will be completed once the job's ExecuteJob method is done, and the Task.Result will be the job that executed.
Related
Hi I have Controller method as below
[HttpPost]
public JsonResult Post(string vehiclesString, string Entity, int EntityId, ApplicationUser CurrentUser)
{
//https://stackify.com/understanding-asp-net-performance-for-reading-incoming-data/
List<Vehicle> vehicles = Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Vehicle>>(vehiclesString);
InputFieldController c = new InputFieldController();
var errors = new List<string>();
try
{
//let's get model for each of the input field
InputFieldController icController = new InputFieldController();
List<InputField> fields = icController.GetNamesValues("VehicleField", -1, "Vehicle", 0);
foreach (Vehicle vehicle in vehicles)
{
//convert array of strings into array of input fields
if (fields.Count != vehicle.ValueStrings.Count)
{
throw new Exception("Vehicle columns mismatch. Expected "
+ fields.Count + " fields, but received " + vehicle.ValueStrings.Count);
}
for (int i = 0; i < fields.Count; i++)
{
InputField field = fields[i];
string cell = vehicle.ValueStrings[i];
if ((cell != null || cell != String.Empty) && (field.Type == "radio" || field.Type == "dropdown"))
{
var f = field.InputDropdowns.Where(x => x.Name == cell).FirstOrDefault();
if (f != null)
{
field.InputValue.InputDropdownId = f.InputDropdownId;
}
else
field.InputValue.InputDropdownId = null;
}
else
{
field.InputValue.Value = cell;
}
vehicle.Values.Add(field);
}
vehicle.Blob = Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.SerializeObject(vehicle.Values);
Vehicle v = new Vehicle();
if (vehicle.VehicleId == 0)
{
v = this.DomainLogicUnitOfWork.VehicleManager.Create(vehicle, Entity, EntityId);
}
}
JsonResult data = Json(new
{
success = true,
});
List<Vehicle> vehiclesList = this.DomainLogicUnitOfWork.VehicleManager.List(Entity, EntityId);
if (vehiclesList != null)
foreach (Vehicle v in vehiclesList)
{
if ((v != null) && (v.Blob != null))
v.Values = Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<InputField>>(v.Blob);
}
//Task task = Task.Run(async () => await this.DomainLogicUnitOfWork.VehicleInfoManager.CreateOrUpdate(Entity, EntityId));
/*
* Here I have to call the this.DomainLogicUnitOfWork.VehicleInfoManager.CreateOrUpdate(string Entity, int EntityId) asynchronously
* but return the data without waiting for the CreateOrUpdate to complete
*/
System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironment.QueueBackgroundWorkItem(async cancellationToken =>
{
await this.DomainLogicUnitOfWork.VehicleInfoManager.CreateOrUpdate(vehiclesList, Entity, EntityId);
});
return data;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LogHandler.LogError(9000, "Error updating input fields", ex);
errors.Add("Error 9000:" + ex.Message);
return Json(new
{
error = ex.Message
});
}
}
And I have CreateOrUpdate method defined as below in VehicleInfoManager class
public async Task CreateOrUpdate(string Entity, int EntityId)
{
//do some stuff
var task = Task.Run(() => Test(Entity, EntityId));
//do other stuff
await task;
//some more stuff
}
And Test method is as follows
private void Test(string Entity, int EntityId)
{
List<VehicleInfo> addList; List<VehicleInfo> updateList;
try
{
this.GetAddAndUpdateList(Entity, EntityId, out addList, out updateList);
if ((addList != null) && (addList.Count > 0))
using (var cont = this.UnitOfWork.Context)
{
foreach (var a in addList)
{
cont.VehicleInfos.Add(a);
}
cont.SaveChanges();
}
if ((updateList != null) && (updateList.Count > 0))
using (var cont = this.UnitOfWork.Context)
{
foreach (var a in updateList)
{
var aa = cont.VehicleInfos?.Where(x => x.VehicleInfoId == a.VehicleInfoId)?.FirstOrDefault();
aa.Address_City = a.Address_City;
aa.Address_Country = a.Address_Country;
aa.Address_StateCode = a.Address_StateCode;
aa.Address_Street1 = a.Address_Street1;
aa.Address_Street2 = a.Address_Street2;
aa.Address_Zip = a.Address_Zip;
aa.ChassisYear = a.ChassisYear;
aa.EngineFamilyName = a.EngineFamilyName;
aa.Entity = a.Entity;
aa.EntityId = a.EntityId;
aa.InputFieldEntity = a.InputFieldEntity;
aa.InputFieldEntityId = a.InputFieldEntityId;
aa.InputFieldGroup = a.InputFieldGroup;
aa.LicensePlate = a.LicensePlate;
aa.Manufacturer = a.Manufacturer;
aa.ModelYear = a.ModelYear;
aa.PurchasedDate = a.PurchasedDate;
aa.RegHoldClearBy = a.RegHoldClearBy;
aa.RegHoldClearDate = a.RegHoldClearDate;
aa.RegHoldComment = a.RegHoldComment;
aa.RegHoldSet = a.RegHoldSet;
aa.RegHoldSetBy = a.RegHoldSetBy;
aa.RegHoldSetDate = a.RegHoldSetDate;
aa.TrailerPlate = a.TrailerPlate;
aa.UpdatedBy = a.UpdatedBy;
aa.UpdatedDate = a.UpdatedDate;
aa.VehicleId = a.VehicleId;
aa.VehicleOperator = a.VehicleOperator;
aa.VehicleOwner = a.VehicleOwner;
aa.VIN = a.VIN;
}
cont.SaveChanges();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
ARB.Logging.LogHandler.LogError(9001, "CreateOrUpdate(string Entity, int EntityId) in class VehicleInfoManager", ex);
throw ex;
}
}
What I want is, I want two things here
the Post method to call or start the CreateOrUpdate method as background call but instead of waiting until the CreateOrUpdate method finishes, it should return the result data to UI and continue the big task CreateOrUpdate in the background.
Is there anyway to start the background method CreateOrUpdate after sometime like (10 mins etc) post method returns to UI, if it can't be done, its OK we don't have to worry but just asking if there is anyway to trigger this from within the same application
When I implemented it in the above way, even after using System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironment.QueueBackgroundWorkItem I am still getting the null http context at the following location
user = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name; url = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.Url.ToString();
System.Web.HttpContext.Current is coming out as null.
and the application is breaking,
I chaned my async call to the following to use HostingEnvironment.QueueBackgroundWorkItem, still the same htt current context is coming out as null, any help please
System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironment.QueueBackgroundWorkItem(async cancellationToken =>
{
await this.DomainLogicUnitOfWork.VehicleInfoManager.CreateOrUpdate(Entity, EntityId);
});
Thank you
System.Web.HttpContext.Current is maintained by the ASP.NET's SynchronizationContext.
When you start a new Task, the code will be executing on another thread pool thread without a SynchronizationContext and the value of System.Web.HttpContext.Current is not safe to use, whatever its value.
When the execution of the action method (Post) ends, the request will end and the HttpContext instance will be invalid, even if you mange to get a reference to it.
Also, there is no guarantee that that code you posted to the thread pool will run to complete, since it's out of ASP.NET control and ASP.NET won't be aware of it if IIS decides, for some reason, to recycle the application pool or the web application.
If you to post background work, use HostingEnvironment.QueueBackgroundWorkItem. Beware if its constraints.
How can I cancel an asynchronous task when it takes very long to complete it or if it will probably never complete? Is it possible to use a given time(for example 10 seconds) for each task and when it doesn't complete in this given time, then the task will automatically be cancelled?
Is it possible to restart a task or create the same task again after it failed? What can I do if one of the tasks in a task list fails? Is it possible to only restart the failed task?
In my code, playerCountryDataUpdate should only be executed after each task in TasksList1 completed without error or exception. I want to restart a task when it fails. When the same task fails again, then don't restart it and display an error message on the screen. How can I do that?
bool AllMethods1Completed = false;
bool AllMethods2Completed = false;
public async Task PlayerAccountDetails()
{
var playerCountryDataGet = GetPlayerCountryData();
var playerTagsData = GetPlayerTagsData();
var TasksList1 = new List<Task> { playerCountryDataGet, playerTagsData };
try
{
await Task.WhenAll(TasksList1);
AllMethods1Completed = true;
}
catch
{
AllMethods1Completed = false;
}
if (AllMethods1Completed == true)
{
var playerCountryDataUpdate = UpdatePlayerCountryData("Germany", "Berlin");
var TasksList2 = new List<Task> { playerCountryDataUpdate };
try
{
await Task.WhenAll(TasksList2);
AllMethods2Completed = true;
}
catch
{
AllMethods2Completed = false;
}
}
}
private async Task GetPlayerTagsData()
{
var resultprofile = await PlayFabServerAPI.GetPlayerTagsAsync(new PlayFab.ServerModels.GetPlayerTagsRequest()
{
PlayFabId = PlayerPlayFabID
});
if (resultprofile.Error != null)
Console.WriteLine(resultprofile.Error.GenerateErrorReport());
else
{
if ((resultprofile.Result != null) && (resultprofile.Result.Tags.Count() > 0))
PlayerTag = resultprofile.Result.Tags[0].ToString();
}
}
private async Task GetPlayerCountryData()
{
var resultprofile = await PlayFabClientAPI.GetUserDataAsync(new PlayFab.ClientModels.GetUserDataRequest()
{
PlayFabId = PlayerPlayFabID,
Keys = null
});
if (resultprofile.Error != null)
Console.WriteLine(resultprofile.Error.GenerateErrorReport());
else
{
if (resultprofile.Result.Data == null || !resultprofile.Result.Data.ContainsKey("Country") || !resultprofile.Result.Data.ContainsKey("City"))
Console.WriteLine("No Country/City");
else
{
PlayerCountry = resultprofile.Result.Data["Country"].Value;
PlayerCity = resultprofile.Result.Data["City"].Value;
}
}
}
private async Task UpdatePlayerCountryData(string country, string city)
{
var resultprofile = await PlayFabClientAPI.UpdateUserDataAsync(new PlayFab.ClientModels.UpdateUserDataRequest()
{
Data = new Dictionary<string, string>() {
{"Country", country},
{"City", city}
},
Permission = PlayFab.ClientModels.UserDataPermission.Public
});
if (resultprofile.Error != null)
Console.WriteLine(resultprofile.Error.GenerateErrorReport());
else
Console.WriteLine("Successfully updated user data");
}
You need to build a cancellation mechanism directly into the task itself. C# provides a CancellationTokenSource and CancellationToken classes to assist with this. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.threading.cancellationtoken?view=netcore-3.1
Add an (optional) CancellationToken to your task's parameters. Then check the token at appropriate intervals to determine if the task needs to abort before it completes.
In the case of a long running query, it would be best to figure out how to break the query into chunks and then check the CancellationToken between queries.
private async Task GetPlayerXXXData(CancellationToken ct = null) {
int limit = 100;
int total = Server.GetPlayerXXXCount();
List<PlayerXXXData> results = new List<PlayerXXXData>();
while((ct == null || ct.IsCancellationRequested) && result.Count < total) {
result.AddRange(Server.GetPlayerXXXData(result.Count, limit));
}
return results;
}
Mind the above has no error handling in it; but you get the idea. You might consider making it faster (to start using the data) by implementing Deferred Execution with your own custom IEnumerable implementation. Then you can query one chunk and iterate over that chunk before querying for the next chunk. This could also help prevent you from loading too much into RAM - depending upon the number of records you are intending to process.
set timeout in your logic to suspend the task:
int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) == task) {
// task completed within timeout
} else {
// timeout logic
}
Asynchronously wait for Task<T> to complete with timeout
and also put try catch blocks in a while loop with a flag until you want to retry
var retry=0;
while (retry<=3)
{
try{
await with timeout
raise timeout exception
}
catch(catch timeout exception here )
{
retry++;
if(retry ==3)
{
throw the catched exception here
}
}
}
this method - doDayBegin(item.BranchId) is taking long time to execute. so i am using Parallel.ForEach to execute it parallel. when i am using normal foreach loop its working fine but when i am using Parallel.ForEach it showing this error
The context cannot be used while the model is being created Parallel.ForEach
public ActionResult Edit([DataSourceRequest] DataSourceRequest request)
{
try
{
JavaScriptSerializer js = new JavaScriptSerializer();
List<DB0010020Vm> _listDB0010020Vm = new List<DB0010020Vm>();
string dataDB0010020vm = Request.Form["griddetailsvm"];
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(dataDB0010020vm))
{
_listDB0010020Vm = js.Deserialize<List<DB0010020Vm>>(dataDB0010020vm).
Where(d => d.IsValid == "YES").ToList();
}
DateTime start = DateTime.UtcNow;
Parallel.ForEach(_listDB0010020Vm, item =>
{
doDayBegin(item.BranchId);
});
DateTime end = DateTime.UtcNow;
TimeSpan duration = end - start;
return Json(new
{
success = true,
message = "Day Begin Process Completed Successfully!" + duration
});
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return Json(new
{
success = false,
message = e.Message
});
}
}
public void doDayBegin(int BranchId)
{
using (var dbThread = new NeoSampleDBEntities()) // new db connection
{
EBS.DAL.Model.DB0010020 branchDetails = _idDB0010020Repository.FindOne(d => d.BranchId == BranchId);
if (branchDetails == null)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "Branch not found!");
}
else
{
branchDetails.LastOpenDate = Convert.ToDateTime(Request.Form["LastOpenDate"]);
OperationStatus status = _idDB0010020Repository.UpdateAndSave(branchDetails);
if (status != null && !status.Status)
ModelState.AddModelError("Updation failed", status.ExceptionMessage);
}
EBS.DAL.Model.DB0010044 dayBegin = new DB0010044();
dayBegin.BankId = 1;
dayBegin.BranchId = BranchId;
dayBegin.DayBeginFlag = 1;
dayBegin.DayDate = Convert.ToDateTime(Request.Form["LastOpenDate"]);
dayBegin.DayEndFlag = 0;
dayBegin.DayEndStage = 1;
dayBegin.DayReopenFlag = 0;
OperationStatus status2 = _idDB0010044Repository.AddAndSave(dayBegin);
if (status2 != null && !status2.Status)
ModelState.AddModelError("Updation failed", status2.ExceptionMessage);
else
{
CreateInwardSessionsForBranch(BranchId);
CreateOutwardSessionsForBranch(BranchId);
}
}
}
this is error
what will be the issue?
You create a new instance of the NeoSampleDBEntities DbContext in the doDayBegin method, but you use an existing (and as far as I can tell, single) instance of the repository _idDB0010020Repository, presumably encapsulating its own instance of DbContext or a pre-existing DbContext instance that was passed in on construction.
The error you're seeing is the result of a second thread's call to <repo>.FindOne making a DbContext method call while the model is being generated as a result of the first thread's call to <repo>.FindOne. Even if the model creation finished, you'll more than likely run into conflicts as DbContext is not thread safe.
From what you've posed, my suggestion would be to create a new repo in the using statement of the doDayBegin method instead of a new instance of the NeoSampleDBEntities DbContext.
My guess it's that _listDB0010020Vm has not been calculated yet when the parallel.foreach is called. If you step through the code in a standard non parallel foreach, it would show this by skipping the .where selection line, going into the foreach, then when it needs the list value, step next will show it jump back to the where selector. I believe List.ToArray will force it to calculate. Try paying that result to the parallel loop.
I have a telephony application, in which I want to invoke simultaneous calls,. Each call will occupy a channel or port. So I added all channels to a BlockingCollection. The application is a windows service.
Let's see the code.
public static BlockingCollection<Tuple<ChannelResource, string>> bc = new BlockingCollection<Tuple<ChannelResource, string>>();
public static List<string> list = new List<string>();// then add 100 test items to it.
The main application has the code:
while (true)
{
ThreadEvent.WaitOne(waitingTime, false);
lock (SyncVar)
{
Console.WriteLine("Block begin");
for (int i = 0; i < ports; i++)
{
var firstItem = list.FirstOrDefault();
if (bc.Count >= ports)
bc.CompleteAdding();
else
{
ChannelResource cr = OvrTelephonyServer.GetChannel();
bc.TryAdd(Tuple.Create(cr, firstItem));
list.Remove(firstItem);
}
}
pc.SimultaneousCall();
Console.WriteLine("Blocking end");
if (ThreadState != State.Running) break;
}
Now for the simultaneous call code:
public void SimultaneousCall()
{
Console.WriteLine("There are {0} channels to be processed.", bc.Count);
var workItemBlock = new ActionBlock<Tuple<ChannelResource, string>>(
workItem =>
{
ProcessEachChannel(workItem);
});
foreach (var workItem in bc.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
bool result = workItemBlock.SendAsync(workItem).Result;
}
workItemBlock.Complete();
}
private void ProcessEachChannel(Tuple<ChannelResource, string> workItem)
{
ChannelResource cr = workItem.Item1;
string sipuri = workItem.Item2;
VoiceResource vr = workItem.Item1.VoiceResource;
workItem.Item1.Disconnected += new Disconnected(workItemItem1_Disconnected);
bool success = false;
try
{
Console.WriteLine("Working on {0}", sipuri);
DialResult dr = new DialResult();
// blah blah for calling....
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Exception: {0}", ex.Message);
}
finally
{
if (cr != null && cr.VoiceResource != null)
{
cr.Disconnect();
cr.Dispose();
cr = null;
Console.WriteLine("Release channel for item {0}.", sipuri);
}
}
}
The question was when I tested the application with 4 ports, I thought the code should reach at
Console.WriteLine("Blocking end");
However it was not. Please see the snapshot.
The application is just hanging on after releasing the last channel. I guess that I may use the blockingcollection incorrectly. Thanks for help.
UPDATE:
Even I changed the code by using POST action as below, the situation is still unchanged.
private bool ProcessEachChannel(Tuple<ChannelResource, string> workItem)
{
// blah blah to return true or false respectively.
public void SimultaneousCall()
{
Console.WriteLine("There are {0} channels to be processed.", bc.Count);
var workItemBlock = new ActionBlock<Tuple<ChannelResource, string>>(
workItem =>
{
bool success = ProcessEachChannel(workItem);
});
foreach (var workItem in bc.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
workItemBlock.Post(workItem);
}
workItemBlock.Complete();
}
I believe the problem is that you never call bc.CompleteAdding(): the if means it would be called in ports + 1-th iteration of the loop, but the loop iterates only ports-times. Because of this, GetConsumingEnumerable() returns a sequence that never ends, which means the foreach inside SimultaneousCall() blocks forever.
I think the right solution is to call bc.CompleteAdding() after the for loop, not in an impossible condition inside it.
I have a routine that creates n instances of a particular workflow and runs them each serially. How could I fire them off async?
Current p-code:
forloop
// Create
var syncEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
WorkflowInstance myInstance = new WorkflowInstance(new SomeWorkflow(), parameters);
// Events
// Completed
myInstance.OnCompleted = delegate(WorkflowCompletedEventArgs e) { syncEvent.Set(); };
// Unhandled Exception
myInstance.OnUnhandledException = delegate(WorkflowUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
// Message
Console.WriteLine(e.UnhandledException.ToString());
return UnhandledExceptionAction.Terminate;
};
// Aborted
myInstance.OnAborted = delegate(WorkflowAbortedEventArgs e)
{
// Message
Console.WriteLine(e.Reason);
syncEvent.Set();
};
// Run
myInstance.Run();
// Wait
syncEvent.WaitOne();
I think the easiest way to get from here to there would be just to create multiple wait handles and end with a WaitAll(). Not the most elegant solution, but it will work for you. BTW, I would recommend using a real class that holds reference to the associated wait handle and avoiding the anon methods.
List<ManualResetEvent> items = new List<ManualResetEvent>();
foreach (Type job in queue)
{
WorkflowInstance myInstance = new WorkflowInstance(job, parameters);
ManualResetEvent syncEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
items.Add(syncEvent);
// Completed
myInstance.OnCompleted = delegate(WorkflowCompletedEventArgs e)
{
syncEvent.Set();
};
// Unhandled Exception
myInstance.OnUnhandledException = delegate(WorkflowUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
// Message
Console.WriteLine(e.UnhandledException.ToString());
return UnhandledExceptionAction.Terminate;
};
// Aborted
myInstance.OnAborted = delegate(WorkflowAbortedEventArgs e)
{
// Message
Console.WriteLine(e.Reason);
syncEvent.Set();
};
// Run
myInstance.Run();
}
// Wait
WaitHandle.WaitAll(items.ToArray());
Use parallel framework, it will be easier.
Do you really need them running on separate threads? I'm thinking since you are using Workflow already it should be easiest to solve the problem by using workflow to 'organize your work'.
{
var ArgsToProcess = new List<string> { "arg_one", "arg_two", "arg_three" };
var delegateArg = new DelegateInArgument<string> { Name = "s" };
Activity toRun = new ParallelForEach<string>
{
Body = new ActivityAction<string>
{
Argument = delegateArg,
Handler = new Workflow1() //Plug your workflow here
{
Arg = delegateArg
}
}
};
WorkflowInvoker.Invoke(toRun, new Dictionary<string, object>
{
{"Values", ArgsToProcess}
});
}