Develop Reference

Replace 'BackgroundWorker' With 'Thread '

I want to replace BackgroundWorker in my winform application with a Thread.
The goal is do the the jobs in a new thread other than UI-thread & prevent program hang during run.
So i did this :
private void radBtn_start_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
string thread_name = "trd_" + rnd.Next(99000, 10000000).ToString();
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Thread_Method));
thread.Name = thread_name;
thread.Start();
}
catch (System.Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show("Error in radBtn_start_Click() Is : " + ex.ToString());
}
}
public void Thread_Method()
{
...Some Jobs
Thread.Sleep(20000);
...Some Jobs After Delay
Thread.Sleep(20000);
...Some Jobs After Delay
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
radTextBoxControl1.Text += DateTime.Now.ToString() + " : We are at end of search( " + radDropDownList1.SelectedItem.Tag + " ) = -1" + Environment.NewLine;
}));
}
But after running these codes UI hangs during sleep.
What is the correct codes for my purpose?

You don't have to create a new Thread, your process already has a pool of threads anxiously waiting to do something for you
Usually the threads in the thread pool are used when you use async-await. However, you can also use them for heavy calculations
My advice is to make your thread_method async. This has the advantage, that whenever your thread_method has to wait idly for another process to finish, like writing data to a file, fetching items from a database, or reading information from the internet, the thread is available for the thread pool to do other tasks.
If you are not familiar with async-await: this interview with Eric Lippert really helped me to understand what happens when you use async-await. Search somewhere in the middle for async-await.
One of the nice things about async-await, is that the executing thread has the same "context" as the UI-thread, so this thread can access UI-elements. No need to check for InvokeRequired or to call Invoke.
To make your ThreadMethod async:
declare it async
instead of TResults return Task<TResult>; instead of void return Task
only exception: async event handlers return void
whenever you call other methods that have an async version, call this async version, start awaiting when you need the results of the async task.
public async Task FetchCustomerAddress(int customerId)
{
// fetch the customer address from the database:
using (var dbContext = new OrderDbContext(...))
{
return await dbContext.Customers
.Where(customer => customer.Id == customerId)
.Select(customer => new Address
{
Name = customer.Name,
Street = customer.Street,
... // etc
})
.FirstOrDefaultAsync();
}
}
public async Task CreateCustomerOrder(
int customerId, IEnumerable orderLines)
{
// start reading the customer Address
var taskReadCustomerAddress = this.FetchCustomerAddress(customerId);
// meanwhile create the order
CustomerOrder order = new CustomerOrder();
foreach (var orderLine in orderLines)
{
order.OrderLines.Add(orderLine);
}
order.CalculateTotal();
// now you need the address of the customer: await:
Address customerAddress = await taskReadCustomerAddress;
order.Address = customerAddress;
return order;
}
Sometimes you don't have to wait idly for another process to finish, but you need to do some heavy calculations, and still keep your UI-thread responsive. In older applications you would use the BackgroundWorker for this, in newer applications you use Task.StartNew
For instance, you have a button, and a menu item that both will start some heavy calculations. Just like when using the backgroundworker you want to show some progress. While doing the calculations, both the menu item and the button need to be disable.
public async Task PrintCustomerOrdersAsync(
ICollection<CustomerOrderInformation> customerOrders)
{
// while creating the customer orders: disable the button and the menu items
this.buttonPrintOrders.Enabled = false;
this.menuItemCreateOrderLines.Enabled = false;
// show the progress bar
this.ProgressBarCalculating.MinValue = 0;
this.ProgressBarCalculating.MaxValue = customers.Count;
this.ProgressBarCalculating.Value = 0;
this.ProgressBarCalculating.Visible = true;
List<Task<PrintJob>> printJobs = new List<Task<PrintJob>>();
foreach (CustomerOrderInformation orderInformation in customerOrders)
{
// instead of BackGroundworker raise event, you can access the UI items yourself
CustomerOrder order = this.CreateCustomerOrder(orderInformation.CustomerId,
orderInformation.OrderLines);
this.ProgressBarCalculating.Value +=1;
// print the Order, do not await until printing finished, create next order
printJobs.Add(this.Print(order));
}
// all orders created and sent to the printer. await until all print jobs complete:
await Task.WhenAll(printJobs);
// cleanup:
this.buttonPrintOrders.Enabled = true;
this.menuItemCreateOrderLines.Enabled = true;
this.ProgressBarCalculating.Visible = false;
}
By the way: in a proper design, you would separate the enabling / disabling the items from the actual processing:
public async Task PrintCustomerOrdersAsync(ICollection<CustomerOrderInformation> customerOrders)
{
this.ShowBusyPrintingOrders(customerOrders.Count);
await this.PrintOrdersAsync(customerOrders);
this.HideBusyPrintingOrders();
}
Now to start printing the orders when a button is pressed, there are two possibilities:
If the process is mostly waiting for others: async event handler
If there are really heavy calculations (longer than a second?): start a task that does the calculations
No heavy calculations:
// async event handler has void return value!
private async void ButtonPrintOrdersClickedAsync(object sender, ...)
{
var orderInformations = this.GetOrderInformations();
await PrintCustomerOrdersAsync(orderInformations);
}
Because I don't have anything other useful to do, I await immediately
Heavy calculations: start a separate task:
private async Task ButtonCalculateClickedAsync(object sender, ...)
{
var calculationTask = Task.Run(() => this.DoHeavyCalculations(this.textBox1.Text);
// because you didn't await, you are free to do something else,
// for instance show progress:
while (!calculationTask.Complete)
{
// await one second; UI is responsive!
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
this.ProgressBar.Value += 1;
}
}
Be aware: using these methods, you can't stop the process. So you are in trouble if the operator wants to close the application while you are still printing.
Just like your background thread, every method that supports cancellation should regularly check if cancellation is requested. The advantage is, that this checking is also done in the .NET methods that support cancellation, like reading database information, writing a file, etc. The backgroundWorker couldn't cancel writing to a file.
For this we have the CancellationTokenSource
private CancellationTokenSource cancellationTokenSource;
private Task taskPrintOrders;
public async Task PrintCustomerOrdersAsync(ICollection<CustomerOrderInformation> customerOrders)
{
this.ShowBusyPrintingOrders(customerOrders.Count);
using (this.cancellactionTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource())
{
taskPrintOrders = this.PrintOrdersAsync(customerOrders, this.cancellationTokenSource.Token);
await taskPrintOrders;
this.HideBusyPrintingOrders();
}
private void CancelPrinting()
{
this.cancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
}
If you want to cancel and wait until finished, for instance when closing the form:
private bool TaskStillRunning => this.TaskPrinting != null && !this.TaskPrinting.Complete;
private async void OnFormClosing(object sender, ...)
{
if (this.TaskStillRunning)
{
bool canClose = this.AskIfCanClose();
if (!canClose)
eventArgs.Cancel = true;
else
{
// continue closing: stop the task, and wait until stopped
this.CancelPrinting();
await this.taskPrintOrders;
}
}
}

This will work in separate thread without hanging your UI.
Use new Thread
new Thread(delegate()
{
Thread_Method();
}).Start();
or Task.run
Task.Run(() =>
{
Thread_Method();
});

C# Multithread dequeue List<string>

First of all, sorry for my english. I'm doing some C# exercices but I'm in a trouble with this.
Actually, I need to create 2 threads using Thread class. These threads needs to Dequeue items from a List (I have created a Dequeue method to do that) but I need to configure these 2 threads to Deqeueue this List at the same time. Aditionaly, this method needs to show the thread that executed him and the removed the object.
That's the method called by Thread:
private static object Lock = new object();
public string Consume()
{
string result = "";
while (StringList.Count > 0)
{
lock (Lock)
{
result = Dequeue();
}
}
return result;
}
And the thread call:
Thread t1 = new Thread(() => { Console.WriteLine("Thread 1: " + QC.Consume()); });
Thread t2 = new Thread(() => { Console.WriteLine("Thread 2: " + QC.Consume()); });
t1.Start();
t2.Start();
Actually, the program "is working" but it is only being executed by an unique thread. I don't know how to dequeue items from list at the same time with different threads + show which thread dequeued the item.
I'm not asking just to know if someone know the problem, I want to understand the problem and solve it.
Thanks to all!

How to wait until method complete in C#?

I have this C# code, it works but it won't wait until the method completed
foreach (var listBoxItem in visualListBox1.Items)
{
lblCursor.Text = "Processing.. " + listBoxItem;
Thread t = new Thread(() => extract_group(listBoxItem.ToString()));
t.IsBackground = false;
t.Name = "Group Scrapper";
t.Start();
}
How to wait until extract_group method is done before moving to the next listBoxItem?
I used t.join() but it made the UI unresponsive.

Using async/await helps you to not block main thread.
public async Task ExtractGroupAsync()
{
... (logic of the method)
... (you should use async methods here as well with await before executing those methods)
}
You execute this "ExtractGroup" task like:
var example = await ExtractGroupAsync();

It makes GUI unresponsive, because you are on GUI thread. Run whole code, in separate thread.
Note: when you want to access GUI elements from another thread, you should use invoke, for example:
t.Invoke(() => t.Name = "Group Scrapper");

If you want to stick with Thread I recommend using a WaitHandle e.g. AsyncManualResetEvent Class. This approach allows to make a thread wait without blocking CPU (e.g. spinlock).
Your provided example would become:
private static AsyncManualResetEvent mre = new AsyncManualResetEvent(false, true);
public async Task DoSomethingAsync(...)
{
foreach (var listBoxItem in visualListBox1.Items)
{
lblCursor.Text = "Processing.. " + listBoxItem;
Thread t = new Thread(() => ExtractGroup(listBoxItem.ToString()));
t.IsBackground = false;
t.Name = "Group Scrapper";
t.Start();
// Wait for signal to proceed without blocking resources
await mre.WaitAsync();
}
}
private void ExtractGroup(string groupName)
{
// Do something ...
// Signal handle to release all waiting threads (makes them continue).
// Subsequent calls to Set() or WaitOne() won't show effects until Rest() was called
mre.Set();
// Reset handle to make future call of WaitOne() wait again.
mre.Reset();
}
Another solution would be to go with the TPL and use Task instead of Thread:
public async Task DoWorkAsync()
{
foreach (var listBoxItem in visualListBox1.Items)
{
lblCursor.Text = "Processing.. " + listBoxItem;
// Wait for signal to proceed without blocking resources
await Task.Run(() => ExtractGroup(listBoxItem.ToString()));
}
}
The issue with your code sample is, that you are currently on the main thread, the UI thread. Calling Thread.Join() does what you think it does: it blocks the waiting thread until the running thread completes. But as mentioned, the waiting thread is the UI thread, so the UI becomes unresponsive and can even deadlock in some scenario. When you use async/await your invocations become asynchronous and hence awaitable without blocking the UI thread.

Set property value when all threads are finished?

In my application there are three threads like:
private Thread _analysisThread;
private Thread _head2HeadThread;
private Thread _formThread;
and each thread is started in the following way:
if (_analysisThread == null || !_analysisThread.IsAlive)
{
_analysisThread = new Thread(() => { Analysis.Logic(match); });
_analysisThread.Start();
}
I've a ListView where the user can select an item and then start again the thread, but I want prevent this 'cause the methods inside each thread are heavy, so need time to complete them.
Until now I want disable the ListView selection, so I did:
<ListView IsEnabled="{Binding IsMatchListEnabled}">
private bool _isMatchListEnabled = true;
public bool IsMatchListEnabled
{
get { return _isMatchListEnabled; }
set
{
_isMatchListEnabled = value;
OnPropertyChanged();
}
}
before a new Thread start I do: IsMatchListEnabled = false; but what I need to do is check if all thread are finished and then do: IsMatchListEnabled = true;, actually if I enable the ListView after all thread, I get the ListView even enabled 'cause the Thread code is async, and the code outside the Thread is sync, so actually this property is useless.
What I tried to avoid this is create an infinite loop like this:
while (true)
{
if (!_analysisThread.IsAlive && !_head2HeadThread.IsAlive && !_formThread.IsAlive)
{
IsMatchListEnabled = true;
break;
}
}
this loop is placed after all threads execution, but as you can imagine, this will freeze the application.
Any solution?

All comments are correct — it's better to use Tasks. Just to answer OP's question.
You can synchronize threads with ManualResetEvent, having an array of events by the number of threads and one additional thread to change IsMatchListEnabled when all threads are finished.
public static void SomeThreadAction(object id)
{
var ev = new ManualResetEvent(false);
events[id] = ev; // store the event somewhere
Thread.Sleep(2000 * (int)id); // do your work
ev.Set(); // set the event signaled
}
Then, somewhere else we need to initialize waiting routine.
// we need tokens to be able to cancel waiting
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var ct = cts.Token;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
bool completed = false;
while (!ct.IsCancellationRequested && !completed)
{
// will check if our routine is cancelled each second
completed =
WaitHandle.WaitAll(
events.Values.Cast<ManualResetEvent>().ToArray(),
TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
}
if (completed) // if not completed, then somebody cancelled our routine
; // change your variable here
});
Complete example can be found and viewed here.

I would suggest using Microsoft's Reactive Framework for this. It's more powerful than tasks and the code is far simpler than using threads.
Let's say you have 3 long-running operations:
Action huey = () => { Console.WriteLine("Huey Start"); Thread.Sleep(5000); Console.WriteLine("Huey Done"); };
Action dewey = () => { Console.WriteLine("Dewey Start"); Thread.Sleep(5000); Console.WriteLine("Dewey Done"); };
Action louie = () => { Console.WriteLine("Louie Start"); Thread.Sleep(5000); Console.WriteLine("Louie Done"); };
Now you can write the following simple query:
IObservable<Unit> query =
from a in new [] { huey, dewey, louie }.ToObservable()
from u in Observable.Start(() => a())
select u;
You run it like this:
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
IDisposable subscription = query.Subscribe(u => { }, () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("All Done in {0} seconds.", sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds);
});
The results I get are:
Huey Start
Dewey Start
Louie Start
Huey Done
Louie Done
Dewey Done
All Done in 5.0259197 seconds.
Three 5 second operations complete in 5.03 seconds. All in parallel.
If you want to stop the computation early just call subscription.Dispose().
NuGet "System.Reactive" to get the bits.

Multithreading: When would I use a Join?

I see online that it says I use myThread.Join(); when I want to block my thread until another thread finishes. (One of the things I don't get about this is what if I have multiple threads).
But generally, I just don't get when I'd use .Join() or a condition that it's useful for. Can anyone please explain this to me like I'm a fourth grader? Very simple explanation to understand will get my answer vote.

Let's say you want to start some worker threads to perform some kind of calculation, and then do something afterwards with all the results.
List<Thread> workerThreads = new List<Thread>();
List<int> results = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Thread thread = new Thread(() => {
Thread.Sleep(new Random().Next(1000, 5000));
lock (results) {
results.Add(new Random().Next(1, 10));
}
});
workerThreads.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
// Wait for all the threads to finish so that the results list is populated.
// If a thread is already finished when Join is called, Join will return immediately.
foreach (Thread thread in workerThreads) {
thread.Join();
}
Debug.WriteLine("Sum of results: " + results.Sum());
Oh yeah, and don't use Random like that, I was just trying to write a minimal, easily understandable example. It ends up not really being random if you create new Random instances too close in time, since the seed is based on the clock.

In the following code snippet, the main thread calls Join() which causes it to wait for all spawned threads to finish:
static void Main()
{
Thread regularThread = new Thread(ThreadMethod);
regularThread.Start();
Thread regularThread2 = new Thread(ThreadMethod2);
regularThread2.Start();
// Wait for spawned threads to end.
regularThread.Join();
Console.WriteLine("regularThread returned.");
regularThread2.Join();
Console.WriteLine("regularThread2 returned.");
}
Note that if you also spun up a thread from the thread pool (using QueueUserWorkItem for instance), Join would not wait for that background thread. You would need to implement some other mechanism such as using an AutoResetEvent.
For an excellent introduction to threading, I recommend reading Joe Albahari's free Threading in C#

This is very simple program to demonstrate usage of Thread Join.Please follow my comments for better understanding.Write this program as it is.
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ThreadSample
{
class Program
{
static Thread thread1, thread2;
static int sum=0;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
start();
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void Sample() { sum = sum + 1; }
private static void Sample2() { sum = sum + 10; }
private static void start()
{
thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Sample));
thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Sample2));
thread1.Start();
thread2.Start();
// thread1.Join();
// thread2.Join();
Console.WriteLine(sum);
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
1.First time run as it is (with comments) : Then result will be 0(initial value) or 1(when thread 1 finished) or 10 (Or thread finished)
2.Run with removing comment thread1.Join() : Result should be always more than 1.because thread1.Join() fired and thread 1 should be finished before get the sum.
3.Run with removing all coments :Result should be always 11

Join is used mainly when you need to wait that a thread (or a bunch of them) will terminate before proceding with your code.
For this reason is also particular useful when you need to collect result from a thread execution.
As per the Arafangion comment below, it's also important to join threads if you need to do some cleaning/housekeeping code after having created a thread.

Join will make sure that the treads above line is executed before executing lines below.

Another example, when your worker thread let's say reads from an input stream while the read method can run forever and you want to somehow avoid this - by applying timeout using another watchdog thread:
// worker thread
var worker = new Thread(() => {
Trace.WriteLine("Reading from stream");
// here is the critical area of thread, where the real stuff happens
// Sleep is just an example, simulating any real operation
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Trace.WriteLine("Reading finished");
}) { Name = "Worker" };
Trace.WriteLine("Starting worker thread...");
worker.Start();
// watchdog thread
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) => {
var timeOut = 5000;
if (!worker.Join(timeOut))
{
Trace.WriteLine("Killing worker thread after " + timeOut + " milliseconds!");
worker.Abort();
}
});

Adding a delay of 300ms in method "Sample" and a delay of 400ms in "Sample2" from devopsEMK's post would make it easier to understand.
By doing so you can observe that by removing the comment from "thread1.Join();" line, the main thread waits for the "thread1" to complete and only after moves on.