Develop Reference

how to use data from one Thread in another [duplicate]

I've got an ObservableCollection<A> a_collection; The collection contains 'n' items. Each item A looks like this:
public class A : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public ObservableCollection<B> b_subcollection;
Thread m_worker;
}
Basically, it's all wired up to a WPF listview + a details view control which shows the b_subcollection of the selected item in a separate listview (2-way bindings, updates on propertychanged etc.).
The problem showed up for me when I started to implement threading. The entire idea was to have the whole a_collection use it's worker thread to "do work" and then update their respective b_subcollections and have the gui show the results in real time.
When I tried it , I got an exception saying that only the Dispatcher thread can modify an ObservableCollection, and work came to a halt.
Can anyone explain the problem, and how to get around it?

New option for .NET 4.5
Starting from .NET 4.5 there is a built-in mechanism to automatically synchronize access to the collection and dispatch CollectionChanged events to the UI thread. To enable this feature you need to call BindingOperations.EnableCollectionSynchronization from within your UI thread.
EnableCollectionSynchronization does two things:
Remembers the thread from which it is called and causes the data binding pipeline to marshal CollectionChanged events on that thread.
Acquires a lock on the collection until the marshalled event has been handled, so that the event handlers running UI thread will not attempt to read the collection while it's being modified from a background thread.
Very importantly, this does not take care of everything: to ensure thread-safe access to an inherently not thread-safe collection you have to cooperate with the framework by acquiring the same lock from your background threads when the collection is about to be modified.
Therefore the steps required for correct operation are:
1. Decide what kind of locking you will be using
This will determine which overload of EnableCollectionSynchronization must be used. Most of the time a simple lock statement will suffice so this overload is the standard choice, but if you are using some fancy synchronization mechanism there is also support for custom locks.
2. Create the collection and enable synchronization
Depending on the chosen lock mechanism, call the appropriate overload on the UI thread. If using a standard lock statement you need to provide the lock object as an argument. If using custom synchronization you need to provide a CollectionSynchronizationCallback delegate and a context object (which can be null). When invoked, this delegate must acquire your custom lock, invoke the Action passed to it and release the lock before returning.
3. Cooperate by locking the collection before modifying it
You must also lock the collection using the same mechanism when you are about to modify it yourself; do this with lock() on the same lock object passed to EnableCollectionSynchronization in the simple scenario, or with the same custom sync mechanism in the custom scenario.

Technically the problem is not that you are updating the ObservableCollection from a background thread. The problem is that when you do so, the collection raises its CollectionChanged event on the same thread that caused the change - which means controls are being updated from a background thread.
In order to populate a collection from a background thread while controls are bound to it, you'd probably have to create your own collection type from scratch in order to address this. There is a simpler option that may work out for you though.
Post the Add calls onto the UI thread.
public static void AddOnUI<T>(this ICollection<T> collection, T item) {
Action<T> addMethod = collection.Add;
Application.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke( addMethod, item );
}
...
b_subcollection.AddOnUI(new B());
This method will return immediately (before the item is actually added to the collection) then on the UI thread, the item will be added to the collection and everyone should be happy.
The reality, however, is that this solution will likely bog down under heavy load because of all the cross-thread activity. A more efficient solution would batch up a bunch of items and post them to the UI thread periodically so that you're not calling across threads for each item.
The BackgroundWorker class implements a pattern that allows you to report progress via its ReportProgress method during a background operation. The progress is reported on the UI thread via the ProgressChanged event. This may be another option for you.

With .NET 4.0 you can use these one-liners:
.Add
Application.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => this.MyObservableCollection.Add(myItem)));
.Remove
Application.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Func<bool>(() => this.MyObservableCollection.Remove(myItem)));

Collection synchronization code for posterity. This uses simple lock mechanism to enable collection sync. Notice that you'll have to enable collection sync on the UI thread.
public class MainVm
{
private ObservableCollection<MiniVm> _collectionOfObjects;
private readonly object _collectionOfObjectsSync = new object();
public MainVm()
{
_collectionOfObjects = new ObservableCollection<MiniVm>();
// Collection Sync should be enabled from the UI thread. Rest of the collection access can be done on any thread
Application.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{ BindingOperations.EnableCollectionSynchronization(_collectionOfObjects, _collectionOfObjectsSync); }));
}
/// <summary>
/// A different thread can access the collection through this method
/// </summary>
/// <param name="newMiniVm">The new mini vm to add to observable collection</param>
private void AddMiniVm(MiniVm newMiniVm)
{
lock (_collectionOfObjectsSync)
{
_collectionOfObjects.Insert(0, newMiniVm);
}
}
}

I used a SynchronizationContext:
SynchronizationContext SyncContext { get; set; }
// in the Constructor:
SyncContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;
// in the Background Worker or Event Handler:
SyncContext.Post(o =>
{
ObservableCollection.AddRange(myData);
}, null);

MicrosoftDocs
Platform code for UI (layout, input, raising events, etc.) and your app’s code for UI all are executed on the same UI thread
ObservableCollection is raising CollectionChanged event when one of these actions occurs: Add, Remove, Replace, Move, Reset.. And this event must be raised on UI thread, otherwise, an exception will occur in the caller thread
This type of CollectionView does not support changes to its SourceCollection from a thread different from the Dispatcher thread.
And the UI won't updated.
If you want to update the UI from a background thread, Run the code in Application's dispatcher
Application.Current.Dispatcher.Invoke(() => {
// update UI
});

#Jon answer is good but it lacks a code sample:
// UI thread
var myCollection = new ObservableCollection<string>();
var lockObject = new object();
BindingOperations.EnableCollectionSynchronization(myCollection, lockObject );
[..]
// Non UI thread
lock (lockObject)
{
myCollection.Add("Foo")
}
Also note that the CollectionChanged event handler will still be called from the non UI thread.

How do i pass data from Thread to UI-Thread and view that data?

I really don't know how to properly get data from a Thread.
In a thread (or Task, doesnt matter) i want to calculate a lot of doubles. When this is finished i want to show this data in a grid and in a graphic-chart. So i tried to return some type of
Observable<List<double>>
When i then wanted to create a "new ViewModel(data)", i get exceptions cause of threads.
So how do i properly get such a list back from a thread and use it in UI?
Or maybe pass this data while calculating to show some live values would also be nice..
thanks for answers, just need a few tips

This kind of functionality is common and is often accomplished using the BackgroundWorker Class. There is a code example on the linked page and you can find another with feedback in my answer to the How to correctly implement a BackgroundWorker with ProgressBar updates? question on this website.
Alternatively, you can use the Dispatcher object from the UI thread to pass values to that thread. Note that each thread has it's own Dispatcher, so be sure to call the one from the UI thread. You can use this little helper method:
public object RunOnUiThread(Delegate method)
{
return Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal, method);
}
You can use it like this:
RunOnUiThread((Action)delegate
{
// You can run any number of lines of code on the UI Thread here
});
Or inline, like this:
RunOnUiThread((Action)delegate { UpdateData(); });
I have this method in a separate class that has constructors like this:
private UiThreadManager(Dispatcher dispatcher)
{
Dispatcher = dispatcher;
}
public UiThreadManager() : this(Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher) { }
I call this constructor on the UI thread to ensure that the Dispatcher that I will be using is in fact the Dispatcher from the UI thread.

Why do I not get the "Cross-thread operation not valid" error

I use a BackgroundWorker and do this:
private void loadNewAsyncToolStripMenuItem_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.Text = "RunWorkerAsync()";
backgroundWorkerLoading.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void backgroundWorkerLoading_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
UnsafeThreadMethod("hello");
EvenUnsaferThreadMethod();
}
And now the two methods.
private void UnsafeThreadMethod(string text)
{
toolStripLabelRssFeedData.Text = text;
}
private void EvenUnsaferThreadMethod()
{
panelLoading.Visible = true;
}
I don't understand why UnsafeThreadMethod doesn't throw the following exception but EvenUnsaferThreadMethod does.
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'panelLoading' accessed from a thread other than the > thread it was created on.
According to the message it's because toolStripLabelRssFeedData was created on the same thread but it wasn't.
I thought that I can't call controls created by the main thread and have to use the ProgressChanged event. What's going on?
And I have a second question. What is the advantage of doing it like this when I can use ProgressChanged? What should I do?
private void EvenUnsaferThreadMethod()
{
if (panelLoading.InvokeRequired)
{
panelLoading.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(() => { EvenUnsaferThreadMethod(); }));
}
else
{
panelLoading.Visible = true;
}
}

To the first question:
the cross-thread exception is deliberately thrown in Debug mode. This means there is (conditional) code checking on InvokeRequired built into most of the GUI controls. Like the Panel.
Apparently the ToolstripLabel does not make this check. Since it does not derive from Control that could be because it is outside the scope of this safety net.
Since the standard disclaimer "Any instance members are not guaranteed to be thread safe" applies to the ToolstripLabel I would just go with the normal InvokeRequired logic when setting the Text.

For your first question, I am not entirely sure, but a review from online seems to show that sometimes this will not throw an exception, but it will not update the label. Is that the case here? Is your label being updated along with having no exception?
However, I can answer you second question right now. The ProgressChanged event is meant for exactly what it sounds like. It is supposed to be called to let the UI thread know the status of the backgroundworker so that it can update itself appropriately. The original calling thread (UI in this case) is the one that is used for the ProgressChanged, so when it updates it does not need to call Invoke. But, this should really only be done for showing the progress of a background worker.
Now, if it is not an update that you are trying to pass to the calling method, then I would suggest just passing your return data back through the RunWorkerCompleted event. This passes all of your final data back up to the original (UI) thread, so that it can update the UI without any need for an Invoke.
So, yes your call to Invoke will work, though. However, understanding what each of the other events are for can help you understand why to use one way over another. Maybe a ProgressChanged event fits better? It can also declutter your code from having unnecessary invokes.
Update to first q
I still cannot find anything about the toolstrip not needing the invoke. In fact I am finding the opposite using google searches like "toolstriplabel no cross thread exception" or "toolstriplabel invoke", etc. However, as henk mentioned, the toolstriplabel doesn't inherit from control so that might explain why no invoke is required. However, my suggestion is to assume that it will act like any other UI control and make sure it is updated on the UI thread to be safe. do not rely on quirks. Better safe than sorry, you never know if things like this might change, especially since it is logically a UI item to most..,

The advantage of your second choice is that it works :)
All UI elements are created on main UI thread and, what is more important from this question perspective, is that can be acessed only within that thread.
This is the reason why your first case fails and that is the reason your second case will work. Invoke()... will redirect required merhod call to the main UI thread.
Hope this helps.

How to Make Sure UI is Responsive Using BackgroundWorker

Is BackgroundWorker in c# Thread Safe?
The reason I ask this is because I get a
Controls created on one thread cannot
be parented to a control on a
different thread
exception with it. This is my DoWork event code:
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
var openFile = document.Open(MyFileName);
e.Result = openFile;
}
where document is an UI control that is initialized when the parent form is created. During Open method various properties in document will be filled.
I tried to change the code to invoke, yet the same problem persists. i.e,
document.GetType().GetMethod("Open)".Invoke(document, new object[]{MyFileName})
will yield the same error as the above.
Any idea how to manipulate the document control? In other words, how to make the above code work?
Edit: It was suggested that I use Control.Invoke, but it still didn't work ( both of the threads hanged). This is the code I tried:
private delegate bool OpenFile(string filePath);
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
OpenFile oF = new OpenFile(document.Open);
var openFile = Invoke(oF, MyFileName); // it doesn't really matter whether I use BeginInvoke or Invoke, or other Control.Invoke, the end result is the same. Both the main thread hosting the document and the thread that launches the UI hanged.
e.Result = openFile;
}

It isn't the thread that's the problem it's the fact that it's trying to call a method on a UI control. In both WPF and WinForms controls can only be called on the UI thread (of which there is typically one). You don't say which you are using but you need to call the Control.Invoke method for WinForms or Dispatcher.Invoke for WPF.
The Invoke() reflection method you show will actually invoke the method on the current thread.

You can either invoke as Mehrdad Afshari suggested, or you can make use of the bgw's progress event which comes back on the UI thread. Or the work completed event which also comes back on the UI thread. The difference between the two is WorkCompleted is fired only once at the end. Progress is fired by you from DoWork.

While it's unclear to me what you exactly mean by thread-safety of a BackgroundWorker, the problem is not that object; Windows Forms controls are designed to be manipulated on a single thread (the UI thread). You should not manipulate Windows Forms objects on different threads. You can invoke actions in the UI thread from other threads by using the Control.Invoke method (the Invoke method you are currently using is provided by reflection and is totally unrelated to this problem):
Invoke(new Action(MethodToRunInUIThread));
void MethodToRunInUIThread() {
// do stuff here.
}
By the way, it doesn't make sense to use a background worker if all you are doing is manipulating UI objects.

If that functionality of the UI Control takes that long to execute, there may not be much you can do. "Freezing" occurs when a long-running operation happens on the UI thread, and if that function of the control was not specifically made thread-safe, it must be run on the main thread.
Normally, you'd want to separate the "document" functionality away from the control that displays it. This way, your document could be loaded on a separate, independent thread and be displayed later when ready. Otherwise, the control itself would have to implement a multi-threaded load routine to slow loading freezes.
Since you've specified this is a third party control in your comments, you may be out of luck here.

BackgroundWorker is a thread based structure. The thread-safety matter is about functions when doing simultaneous tasks. Maybe what you ask for is about winforms controls which are accessed through a unique thread, that of the user interface thread.

You need to use Control.BeginInvoke() in DoWork. This executes the delegate asynchronously and so will ensure the calling thread will not "hang".
Control.Invoke() will execute the delegate on the other thread also, but will cause the calling thread to wait for it to complete.
Generally in Windows Forms you are better off using Control.BeginInvoke() wherever possible to help avoid deadlocking between threads that can occur when one thread waits for another, as with Control.Invoke().
If the "document" object inherits from System.Windows.Forms.Control, you can simply call document.BeginInvoke(myDelegate).
However if it is actually some other component that encapsulates GUI controls, it may expose some way to call BeginInvoke. Check the documentation (if any). If there is no such ability, then unfortunately it is probably just not designed to support multi-threaded applications.
It looks like you are confused about the various Invoke/BeginInvoke types (understandable). This earlier question: What is the difference between Invoke and BeginInvoke? and Jon Skeets answer should help clarify things.

#Graviton, a related task with an answer is found here. The person was using BackgroundWorker to update a textbox, same concept applies (yours is only a single worker thread).

Any solution to Illegal Cross Thread Operation exception?

When you data bind in C#, the thread that changes the data causes the control to change too. But if this thread is not the one on which the control was created, you'll get an Illegal Cross Thread Operation exception.
Is there anyway to prevent this?

You should be able to do something like:
if (control.InvokeRequired)
{
control.Invoke(delegateWithMyCode);
}
else
{
delegateWithMyCode();
}
InvokeRequired is a property on Controls to see if you are on the correct thread, then Invoke will invoke the delegate on the correct thread.
UPDATE: Actually, at my last job we did something like this:
private void SomeEventHandler(Object someParam)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke(new SomeEventHandlerDelegate(SomeEventHandler), someParam);
}
// Regular handling code
}
which removes the need for the else block and kind of tightens up the code.

As I don't have a test case to go from I can't guarantee this solution, but it seems to me that a scenario similar to the one used to update progress bars in different threads (use a delegate) would be suitable here.
public delegate void DataBindDelegate();
public DataBindDelegate BindData = new DataBindDelegate(DoDataBind);
public void DoDataBind()
{
DataBind();
}
If the data binding needs to be done by a particular thread, then let that thread do the work!

If the thread call is "illegal" (i.e. the DataBind call affects controls that were not created in the thread it is being called from) then you need to create a delegate so that even if the decision / preparation for the DataBind is not done in the control-creating thread, any resultant modification of them (i.e. DataBind()) will be.
You would call my code from the worker thread like so:
this.BindData.Invoke();
This would then cause the original thread to do the binding, which (presuming it is the thread that created the controls) should work.

In WPF and Silverlight the binding infrastructure takes care of the switching to the UI thread.