Develop Reference

Different results when passing a MetroFramework.Forms.MetroForm as Argument to a Method [duplicate]

UPDATE: Just to summarize what my question has boiled down to:
I was hoping that constructing .NET forms and controls did NOT create any window handles -- hoping that process was delayed until Form.Show/Form.ShowDialog
Can anyone confirm or deny whether that is true?
I've got a large WinForms form with tab control, many many controls on the form, that pauses while loading for a couple seconds. I've narrowed it down to the designer generated code in InitializeComponent, rather than any of my logic in the constructor or OnLoad.
I'm well aware that I can't be trying to interact with the UI on any thread other than the main UI thread, but what I'd like to do is to have the application pre-load this form (run the constructor) in the background, so it's ready for display on the UI thread instantly as soon as the user wants to open it. However, when constructing in a background thread, on this line in the designer:
this.cmbComboBox.AutoCompleteMode = System.Windows.Forms.AutoCompleteMode.Suggest;
I'm getting the error
Current thread must be set to single
thread apartment (STA) mode before OLE
calls can be made. Ensure that your
Main function has STAThreadAttribute
marked on it.
Now this is halfway down the designer file, which gives me hope that in general this strategy will work. But this particular line seems to be trying to instantly kick off some kind of OLE call.
Any ideas?
EDIT:
I think I'm not making myself clear here. The delay seems to take place during the construction of a bazillion controls during the designer-generated code.
My hope was that all this initialization code took place without actually trying to touch any real Win32 window objects since the form hasn't actually been shown yet.
The fact that I can set (for example) Label texts and positions from this background thread gave me hope that this was true. However it may not be true for all properties.

While it is not possible to create a form on one thread, and display it using another thread, it is certainly possible to create a form in a non main GUI thread. The current accepted answer seems to say this is not possible.
Windows Forms enforces the Single Threaded Apartment model. In summary this means that there can only be one Window message loop per thread and vice versa. Also, if for example threadA wants to interact with the message loop of threadB, it must marshal the call through mechanisms such as BeginInvoke.
However, if you create a new thread and provide it with it's own message loop, that thread will happily process events independently until it is told to end the message loop.
So to demonstrate, below is Windows Forms code for creating and displaying a form on a non GUI thread:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
label1.Text = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(OpenForm);
Thread t = new Thread(ts);
t.IsBackground=false;
t.Start();
}
private void OpenForm()
{
Form2 f2 = new Form2();
f2.ShowDialog();
}
}
public partial class Form2 : Form
{
public Form2()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void Form2_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
label1.Text = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString() ;
}
}
The OpenForm method runs in a new thread and creates an instance of Form2.
Form2 is actually given it's own separate message loop by calling ShowDialog(). If you were to call Show() instead, no message loop would be provided and Form2 would close immediately.
Also, if you try accessing Form1 within OpenForm() (such as using 'this') you will receive a runtime error as you are trying to do cross-thread UI access.
The t.IsBackground=false sets the thread as a foreground thread. We need a foreground thread because background threads are killed immediately when the main form is closed without first calling FormClosing or FormClosed events.
Apart from these points, Form2 can now be used just like any other form. You'll notice that Form1 is still happily running as usual with it's own message lopp. This means you can click on the button and create multiple instances of Form2, each with their own separate message loop and thread.
You do need to be careful about cross Form access which is now actually cross-thread. You also need to ensure that you handle closing of the main form to ensure any non main thread forms are closed correctly.

I think your understanding is a little off. Controls must be touched from the thread that created them, not the main UI thread. You could have numerous UI threads in a application, each with its own set of controls. Thus creating a control on a different thread will not allow you to work with it from the main thread without marshalling all of the calls over using Invoke or BeginInvoke.
EDIT
Some references for multiple UI threads:
MSDN on Message Loops
MSDN social discussion
Multiple threads in WPF

The answer is no.
If you create a window handle on any thread other than the GUI thread you can never show it.
Edit: It is completely possible to create Forms and controls and
display them in a thread other than the main GUI thread. Of course if
you do this you can only access the multi threaded GUI from the thread
that created it, but it is possible. – Ashley Henderson
You need to perform any heavy lifting on a bg thread and then load the data into you GUI widget

In general, properties of the form need to be accessed from the same thread running the message loop. That means, in order to construct the form on another thread, you would need to marshal any calls to actually set properties using BeginInvoke. This is true for property sets from the constructor, too, if they end up generating a message that needs to be processed (as is happening to you now).
Even if you get that to work, what does it buy you? It will be a bit slower, not faster, overall.
Perhaps just show a splash screen while this form is loading?
Alternatively, review why your form takes so long to construct in the first place. It's not common for this to take seconds.

I believe it is possible to add the components created on the non-UI thread to the main UI, I've done it.
So there are 2 threads, 'NewCompThread' and 'MainThread'.
You spin off NewCompThread and it creates components for you - all ready to be displayed on the MainUI (created on MainThread).
But ... you WILL get an exception if you try something like this on NewCompThread:
ComponentCreatedOnNewCompTHread.parent = ComponentCreatedOnMainThread;
But you can add this:
if (ComponentCreatedOnMainThread.InvokeRequired) {
ComponentCreatedOnMainThread.Invoke(appropriate delegate...);
} else {
ComponentCreatedOnNewCompTHread.parent = ComponentCreatedOnMainThread;
}
And it will work. I've done it.
The strange thing (to me) is that then the ComponentCreatedOnNewCompTHread 'thinks' it was created on the MainThread.
If you do the following from the NewCompThread:
ComponentCreatedOnNewCompTHread.InvokeRequired
it will return TRUE, and you'll need to create a delegate and use Invoke to get back to the MainThread.

Creating a control in a background thread is possible but only on an STA thread.
I created an extension method in order to use this with the async/await pattern
private async void treeview1_AfterSelect(object sender, TreeViewEventArgs e)
{
var control = await CreateControlAsync(e.Node);
if (e.Node.Equals(treeview1.SelectedNode)
{
panel1.Controls.Clear();
panel1.Controls.Add(control);
}
else
{
control.Dispose();
}
}
private async Control CreateControlAsync(TreeNode node)
{
return await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => CreateControl(node), ApartmentState.STA);
}
private Control CreateControl(TreeNode node)
{
// return some control which takes some time to create
}
This is the extension method. Task does not allow to set the apartment so I use a thread internally.
public static Task<T> StartNew<T>(this TaskFactory t, Func<T> func, ApartmentState state)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<T>();
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
tcs.SetResult(func());
}
catch (Exception e)
{
tcs.SetException(e);
}
});
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.SetApartmentState(state);
thread.Start();
return tcs.Task;
}

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);
}
}

C# Getting to original thread to set textbox values

I've got my main form Form1 running the main bulk of my program.
I have a separate thread started to perform an algorithm.
When I run the method from the new thread, method MyAlgorithm() I get the error
InvalidOperationException with the message, "Control control name accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on."
How do I get back to the original thread so that I can run the method to update my text boxes with the latest values?
This is the method that I want to run contained in Form1, the main class in my application.
// Reset the results values
public void ShowResults()
{
while (true)
{
loopsNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultLoopsNum);
nodesVisitedNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultNodesVisitedNum);
nodesResolvedNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultNodesResolvedNum);
cpuLoopsNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultCpuLoopsNum);
shortestPathCostNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultShortestPathCost);
}
}
I've looked at the Invoke() methods, but I don't know how to get the original instance of my Form1 from the threaded method.
I'm invoking my thread like this...
// Set the algorithm method up in it's own thread
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(MyAlgorithm));
// Run the algorithm
thread.Start();

How do I get back to the original thread so that I can run the method to update my text boxes with the latest values?
In Windows Forms, you'd either use Control.Invoke/BeginInvoke or use a BackgroundWorker and perform the update in the progress event handler.
In WPF you'd use Dispatcher.Invoke/BeginInvoke.
In C# 5 and .NET 4.5 you'll be able to use async methods which should make a lot of this much simpler...
I've looked at the Invoke() methods, but I don't know how to get the original instance of my Form1 from the threaded method.
If the "threaded method" is just an instance method of the Form, then you've already got the this reference. If it's not, you'll need to provide that information - ideally as an ISynchronizeInvoke to avoid a direct dependency on Windows Forms if you can express the "update" part separately. (That interface is somewhat deprecated these days, in favour of synchronization contexts, but it still works perfectly well.)

Have a look at Control.Invoke():
public void ShowResults()
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000); // don't spam the UI thread
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke((Action)UpdateGui);
}
else
{
UpdateGui();
}
}
}
private void UpdateGui()
{
loopsNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultLoopsNum);
nodesVisitedNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultNodesVisitedNum);
nodesResolvedNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultNodesResolvedNum);
cpuLoopsNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultCpuLoopsNum);
shortestPathCostNum.Text = Convert.ToString(resultShortestPathCost);
}

You can use:
myform.Invoke(ShowResults);

There's other options here too:
Alternately use a System.Forms.Timer to call ShowResults periodically. Or another option would be not to use another thread to do the operation; do it in the GUI thread and call Application.DoEvents() from within the operation when you want to let the GUI update.
The first option is nice because it keeps you from accidentally flooding the GUI with Invoke requests, and the second option is nice because it's all on the GUI thread and allows you to have fine-grain control over when things get displayed on the GUI.

Windows Client GUI Design Advice - Accessing UI Thread from Long Running Task

Web Developer here and need some advice on how to achieve what must be a common requirement in Windows Forms.
I have a windows client app that calls a business object in a separate project to perform some long running tasks. Difference to other examples is that the process live in another class library i.e. Business.LongRunningTask();
I have a list box in the client that I would like to have logged to by the task. I can run the process on the UI thread passsing in the instance of the textbox and calling Application.DoEvents() when I log to the textbox from within the task. All fine, but not elegant and would prefer not to call Application.DoEvents();
If I run the long running process on a separate thread using delegates I cannot access the textbox or delegates created in the windows client form which rules out BeginInvoke calls.
Surely this is bad design on my part and would appreciate some feedback.

You're looking for the BackgroundWorker class.
To execute a time-consuming operation in the background, create a BackgroundWorker and listen for events that report the progress of your operation and signal when your operation is finished.
You can find a complete example here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b2zk6580(v=VS.100).aspx#Y1351

I can run the process on the UI thread
passsing in the instance of the
textbox and calling
Application.DoEvents() when I log to
the textbox from within the task.
Yes, you could also pass in an instance of ILoggingINnterface that you have used to put in the code to write to the text box FROM WITHIN THE UI and thus have taken care of all the nice BginInvoke stuff ;)
If I run the long running process on a
separate thread using delegates I
cannot access the textbox or delegates
created in the windows client form
which rules out BeginInvoke calls.
Ah. No. You just most invoke back to the dispatcher thread then you can access all the UI elemente you like.

Yeah, avoid Application.DoEvents().
To marshall the call back onto the UI thread, call this.Invoke(YourDelegate)

To access UI elements from a different thread, you can use control.Invoke to call a delegate on the owning thread.
I used this at one point to create a live log screen which was updated from a timer while a different worker thread was running. Heres a simplified version:
public class DifferentClassLibrary
{
public delegate void StringDataDelegate(string data);
public event StringDataDelegate UpdatedData;
public void DoStuff()
{
if (UpdatedData != null)
{
Thread.Sleep(10000);
UpdatedData("data");
}
}
}
And in the winform:
public void UpdateTextBoxCallback(string data)
{
if (uiTextBoxLiveLogView.InvokeRequired)
{
uiTextBoxLiveLogView.Invoke(new DifferentClassLibrary.StringDataDelegate(UpdateTextBoxCallback), data);
}
else
{
uiTextBoxLiveLogView.Text += data;
}
}
void Main()
{
DifferentClassLibrary test = new DifferentClassLibrary();
test.UpdatedData += UpdateTextBoxCallback;
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(test.DoStuff));
thread.Start();
}

C# Multi threading- Move objects between threads

i am working with a winforms control that is both a GUI element and also does some internal processing that has not been exposed to the developer. When this component is instantiated it may take between 5 and 15 seconds to become ready so what i want to do is put it on another thread and when its done bring it back to the gui thread and place it on my form. The problem is that this will (and has) cause a cross thread exception.
Normally when i work with worker threads its just with simple data objects i can push back when processing is complete and then use with controls already on the main thread but ive never needed to move an entire control in this fashion.
Does anyone know if this is possible and if so how? If not how does one deal with a problem like this where there is the potential to lock the main gui?

You don't need to lock the GUI, you just need to call invoke:
Controls in Windows Forms are bound to
a specific thread and are not thread
safe. Therefore, if you are calling a
control's method from a different
thread, you must use one of the
control's invoke methods to marshal
the call to the proper thread. This
property can be used to determine if
you must call an invoke method, which
can be useful if you do not know what
thread owns a control. ref
Here is how it looks in code:
public delegate void ComponentReadyDelegate(YourComponent component);
public void LoadComponent(YourComponent component)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
ComponentReadyDelegate e = new ComponentReadyDelegate(LoadComponent);
this.BeginInvoke(e, new object[]{component});
}
else
{
// The component is used by a UI control
component.DoSomething();
component.GetSomething();
}
}
// From the other thread just initialize the component
// and call the LoadComponent method on the GUI.
component.Initialize(); // 5-15 seconds
yourForm.LoadComponent(component);
Normally calling the LoadComponent from another thread will cause a cross-thread exception, but with the above implementation the method will be invoked on the GUI thread.
InvokeRequired tells you if:
the caller must call an invoke method
when making method calls to the
control because the caller is on a
different thread than the one the
control was created on.
ref
Update:
So if I understand you correctly the control object is created on a thread other than the GUI thread, therefore even if you were able to pass it to the GUI thread you still won't be able to use it without causing a cross-thread exception. The solution would be to create the object on the GUI thread, but initialize it on a separate thread:
public partial class MyForm : Form
{
public delegate void ComponentReadyDelegate(YourComponent component);
private YourComponent _component;
public MyForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
// The componet is created on the same thread as the GUI
_component = new YourComponent();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o =>
{
// The initialization takes 5-10 seconds
// so just initialize the component in separate thread
_component.Initialize();
LoadComponent(_component);
});
}
public void LoadComponent(YourComponent component)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
ComponentReadyDelegate e = new ComponentReadyDelegate(LoadComponent);
this.BeginInvoke(e, new object[]{component});
}
else
{
// The component is used by a UI control
component.DoSomething();
component.GetSomething();
}
}
}

Without knowing too much about the object. To avoid cross thread exceptions, you can make the initial thread invoke a call (Even if you are calling from a thread).
Copied and pasted from one of my own applications :
private delegate void UpdateStatusBoxDel(string status);
private void UpdateStatusBox(string status)
{
listBoxStats.Items.Add(status);
listBoxStats.SelectedIndex = listBoxStats.Items.Count - 1;
labelSuccessful.Text = SuccessfulSubmits.ToString();
labelFailed.Text = FailedSubmits.ToString();
}
private void UpdateStatusBoxAsync(string status)
{
if(!areWeStopping)
this.BeginInvoke(new UpdateStatusBoxDel(UpdateStatusBox), status);
}
So essentially the threaded task will call the "Async" method. Which will then tell the main form to begininvoke (Actually async itself).
I believe there is probably a shorter way to do all of this, without the need for creating delegates and two different methods. But this way is just ingrained into me. And it's what the Microsoft books teach to you do :p

The BackgroundWorker class is designed for exactly this situation. It will manage the thread for you, and let you start the thread, as well as cancel the thread. The thread can send events back to the GUI thread for status updates, or completion. The event handlers for these status and completion events are in the main GUI thread, and can update your WinForm controls. And the WinForm doesn't get locked. It's everything you need. (And works equally well in WPF and Silverlight, too.)

The control must be created and modified from the UI thread, there's no way around that.
In order to keep the UI responsive while doing long-running initialization, keep the process on a background thread and invoke any control access. The UI should remain responsive, but if it doesn't, you can add some wait time to the background thread. This is an example, using .Net 4 parallel tools: http://www.lovethedot.net/2009/01/parallel-programming-in-net-40-and_30.html
If interaction with the specific control being initialized can't be allowed until initialization finishes, then hide or disable it until complete.