I have a producer / consumer queue, except that there are specific types of objects. So not just any consumer can consume an added object. I don't want to make a specific queue for each type, as there are too many. (It sort of stretches the definition of producer/consumer, but I'm not sure what the correct term is.)
Is there such a thing as an EventWaitHandle which allows pulses with a parameter? e.g. myHandle.Set(AddedType = "foo"). Right now I'm using Monitor.Wait and then each consumer checks to see if the pulse was actually intended for them, but that seems kind of pointless.
A pseduocode version of what I have now:
class MyWorker {
public string MyType {get; set;}
public static Dictionary<string, MyInfo> data;
public static void DoWork(){
while(true){
if(Monitor.Wait(data, timeout)){
if (data.ContainsKey(MyType)){
// OK, do work
}
}
}
}
}
As you can see, I might get pulses when other stuff is added to the dict. I only care when MyType is added to the dict. Is there a way to do that? It's not a huge deal, but, for example, I have to manually handle timeouts now, because each get of the lock could succeed within the timeout, but MyType is never added to the dict within timeout.
This is an interesting question. It sounds like the key to the solution is a blocking variant of a priority queue. Java has the PriorityBlockingQueue, but unfortunately the equivalent for the .NET BCL is nonexistent. Once you have one, however, the implementation is easy.
class MyWorker
{
public string MyType {get; set;}
public static PriorityBlockingQueue<string, MyInfo> data;
public static void DoWork()
{
while(true)
{
MyInfo value;
if (data.TryTake(MyType, timeout, out value))
{
// OK, do work
}
}
}
}
Implementing a PriorityBlockingQueue is not terribly difficult. Following the same pattern as BlockingCollection by utilizing Add and Take style methods I came up with the following code.
public class PriorityBlockingQueue<TKey, TValue>
{
private SortedDictionary<TKey, TValue> m_Dictionary = new SortedDictionary<TKey,TValue>();
public void Add(TKey key, TValue value)
{
lock (m_Dictionary)
{
m_Dictionary.Add(key, value);
Monitor.Pulse(m_Dictionary);
}
}
public TValue Take(TKey key)
{
TValue value;
TryTake(key, TimeSpan.FromTicks(long.MaxValue), out value);
return value;
}
public bool TryTake(TKey key, TimeSpan timeout, out TValue value)
{
value = default(TValue);
DateTime initial = DateTime.UtcNow;
lock (m_Dictionary)
{
while (!m_Dictionary.TryGetValue(key, out value))
{
if (m_Dictionary.Count > 0) Monitor.Pulse(m_Dictionary); // Important!
TimeSpan span = timeout - (DateTime.UtcNow - initial);
if (!Monitor.Wait(m_Dictionary, span))
{
return false;
}
}
m_Dictionary.Remove(key);
return true;
}
}
}
This was a quick implementation and it has a couple of problems. First, I have not tested it at all. Second, it uses a red-black tree (via SortedDictionary) as the underlying data structure. That means the TryTake method will have O(log(n)) complexity. Priority queues typically have O(1) removal complexity. The typically data structure of choice for priority queues is a heap, but I find that skip lists are actually better in practice for several reasons. Neither of these exist in the .NET BCL which is why I used a SortedDictionary instead despite its inferior performance in this scenario.
I should point out here that this does not actually solve the pointless Wait/Pulse behavior. It is simply encapsulated in the PriorityBlockingQueue class. But, at the very least this will certainly cleanup the core part of your code.
It did not appear like your code handled multiple objects per key, but that would be easy to add by using a Queue<MyInfo> instead of a plain old MyInfo when adding to the dictionary.
It seems like you want to combine producer/consumer queue with an Observer pattern - generic consumer thread or threads reads from the queue, and then passes the event to the required code. In this instance you would not actually signal the Observer but just call it when the consumer thread identifies who is interested in a given work item.
Observer pattern in .Net is typically implemented using C# events. You would just need to call the event handler for the object and one or more observers would get invoked through it. The target code would first have to register itself with the observed object by adding itself to the event for notification on arrival of work.
Related
I need to make a critical section in an area on the basis of a finite set of strings. I want the lock to be shared for the same string instance, (somewhat similar to String.Intern approach).
I am considering the following implementation:
public class Foo
{
private readonly string _s;
private static readonly HashSet<string> _locks = new HashSet<string>();
public Foo(string s)
{
_s = s;
_locks.Add(s);
}
public void LockMethod()
{
lock(_locks.Single(l => l == _s))
{
...
}
}
}
Are there any problems with this approach? Is it OK to lock on a string object in this way, and are there any thread safety issues in using the HashSet<string>?
Is it better to, for example, create a Dictionary<string, object> that creates a new lock object for each string instance?
Final Implementation
Based on the suggestions I went with the following implementation:
public class Foo
{
private readonly string _s;
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<string, object> _locks = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, object>();
public Foo(string s)
{
_s = s;
}
public void LockMethod()
{
lock(_locks.GetOrAdd(_s, _ => new object()))
{
...
}
}
}
Locking on strings is discouraged, the main reason is that (because of string-interning) some other code could lock on the same string instance without you knowing this. Creating a potential for deadlock situations.
Now this is probably a far fetched scenario in most concrete situations. It's more a general rule for libraries.
But on the other hand, what is the perceived benefit of strings?
So, point for point:
Are there any problems with this approach?
Yes, but mostly theoretical.
Is it OK to lock on a string object in this way, and are there any thread safety issues in using the HashSet?
The HashSet<> is not involved in the thread-safety as long as the threads only read concurrently.
Is it better to, for example, create a Dictionary that creates a new lock object for each string instance?
Yes. Just to be on the safe side. In a large system the main aim for avoiding deadlock is to keep the lock-objects as local and private as possible. Only a limited amount of code should be able to access them.
I'd say it's a really bad idea, personally. That isn't what strings are for.
(Personally I dislike the fact that every object has a monitor in the first place, but that's a slightly different concern.)
If you want an object which represents a lock which can be shared between different instances, why not create a specific type for that? You can given the lock a name easily enough for diagnostic purposes, but locking is really not the purpose of a string. Something like this:
public sealed class Lock
{
private readonly string name;
public string Name { get { return name; } }
public Lock(string name)
{
if (name == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("name");
}
this.name = name;
}
}
Given the way that strings are sometimes interned and sometimes not (in a way which can occasionally be difficult to discern by simple inspection), you could easily end up with accidentally shared locks where you didn't intend them.
Locking on strings can be problematic, because interned strings are essentially global.
Interned strings are per process, so they are even shared among different AppDomains. Same goes for type objects (so don't lock on typeof(x)) either.
I had a similar issue not long ago where I was looking for a good way to lock a section of code based on a string value. Here's what we have in place at the moment, that solves the problem of interned strings and has the granularity we want.
The main idea is to maintain a static ConcurrentDictionary of sync objects with a string key. When a thread enters the method, it immediately establishes a lock and attempts to add the sync object to the concurrent dictionary. If we can add to the concurrent dictionary, it means that no other threads have a lock based on our string key and we can continue our work. Otherwise, we'll use the sync object from the concurrent dictionary to establish a second lock, which will wait for the running thread to finish processing. When the second lock is released, we can attempt to add the current thread's sync object to the dictionary again.
One word of caution: the threads aren't queued- so if multiple threads with the same string key are competing simultaneously for a lock, there are no guarantees about the order in which they will be processed.
Feel free to critique if you think I've overlooked something.
public class Foo
{
private static ConcurrentDictionary<string, object> _lockDictionary = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, object>();
public void DoSomethingThreadCriticalByString(string lockString)
{
object thisThreadSyncObject = new object();
lock (thisThreadSyncObject)
{
try
{
for (; ; )
{
object runningThreadSyncObject = _lockDictionary.GetOrAdd(lockString, thisThreadSyncObject);
if (runningThreadSyncObject == thisThreadSyncObject)
break;
lock (runningThreadSyncObject)
{
// Wait for the currently processing thread to finish and try inserting into the dictionary again.
}
}
// Do your work here.
}
finally
{
// Remove the key from the lock dictionary
object dummy;
_lockDictionary.TryRemove(lockString, out dummy);
}
}
}
}
I have a few library utilities which make things a little simpler.
public static RequestUow Uow
{
get { return ContextItemsHelper.Get<RequestUow>("Uow"); }
set { ContextItemsHelper.Set<RequestUow>("Uow", value); }
}
And in ContextItemsHelper
public static T Get<T>(string key)
{
Guard.NullOrEmpty(key, "key");
object obj = Items[key];
return obj.IsNotNull() ? (T)obj : default(T);
}
static IDictionary Items { get { return HttpContextHelper.Current.Items; } }
This works fine but i now want to check if the property uow is null, if it is set a new RequestUow and return it.
The examples I've seen involve setting your own member variable, however i'm wondering if this is likely to be threadsafe.
Anyone got any advice or solutions to offer?
Make Items a ConcurrentDictionary and use it's AddOrUpdate method. As the collection itself is thread safe, you won't have to care about it.
It would also be better if yourGet changed to something like this:
public static T Get<T>(string key)
{
Guard.NullOrEmpty(key, "key");
return Items.GetOrAdd( key, (key) => default(T) );
}
This way the defaults are added at first try and just returned if they are called again.
use pattern Double checked locking pattern
As long as the dictionary doesn't mutate (e.g. no updates), access it is fully threadsafe without any additional measures (*).
Note that it doesn't help to have threadsafe getter/setters for the dictionary if the items contained aren't threadsafe themselves. The safest bet is to use immutable items in the dictionary; if your RequestUow objects are mutable, then you need to make them (and everything else that might be retrieved using this dictionary) threadsafe as well.
*: See for instance this PDF for information on thread-safe collections in .NET. Page 18 clarifies that read-only access does not need additional measured for thread safety.
I have a Visual Studio 2008 C# .NET 3.5 project where I want to have a thread-safe pool of Foo objects.
public class FooPool
{
private object pool_lock_ = new object();
private Dictionary<int, Foo> foo_pool_ = new Dictionary<int, Foo>();
// ...
public void Add(Foo f)
{
lock (pool_lock_)
{
foo_pool_.Add(SomeFooDescriminator, f);
}
}
public Foo this[string key]
{
get { return foo_pool_[key]; }
set { lock (pool_lock_) { foo_pool_[key] = value; } }
}
public IEnumerable<Foo> Foos
{
get
{
lock (pool_lock_)
{
// is this thread-safe?
return foo_pool_.Select(x => x.Value);
}
}
}
}
Is the public IEnumerable<Foo> Foos { get; } function thread-safe? Or, do I need to clone the result and return a new list?
No, it isn't.
If another thread adds to the dictionary while your caller enumerates that, you'll get an error.
Instead, you can do:
lock (pool_lock_) {
return foo_pool.Values.ToList();
}
Is the IEnumerable<Foo> Foos { get; } function thread-safe?
No.
Or, do I need to clone the result and return a new list?
No, because that's not right either. A threadsafe method that gives the wrong answer is not very useful.
If you lock and make a copy then the thing you are returning is a snapshot of the past. The collection could be changed to be completely different the moment the lock is released. If you make this threadsafe by making a copy then you are now handing a bag full of lies to your caller.
When you are dealing with single-threaded code, a reasonable model is that everything is staying the same unless you take specific measures to change a thing. That is not a reasonable model in multi-threaded code. In multi-threaded code, you should assume the opposite: everything is constantly changing unless you take specific measures (such as a lock) to ensure that things are not changing. What is the good of handing out a sequence of Foos that describe the state of the world in the distant past, hundreds of nanoseconds ago? The entire world could be different in that amount of time.
It is not thread safe. You need to return ToList():
return foo_pool_.Select(x => x.Value).ToList();
Careful of deferred execution!
The fact is the actual code runs after the lock has exited.
// Don't do this
lock (pool_lock_)
{
return foo_pool_.Select(x => x.Value); // This only prepares the statement, does not run it
}
You may want to consider a SynchronizedCollection,
SynchronizedCollection Class
Provides a thread-safe collection that contains objects of a type specified by the generic parameter as elements.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms668265.aspx
If you'll lock on every read access you'll end with very bad performance. And in suggestions to use toList you'll also allocate memory every time.
If you using .NET 4 just use ConcurrentDictionary class from new thread safe collections. They will provide very fast (lock free) mechanisms for accessing data from multiple threads.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997305.aspx
If you are using old .NET version I would suggest you to use for cycle with count variable instead of foreach it will work if you only add elements without removing them (as in your example)
I know that is wrong to use lock(this) or any shared object.
I wonder if this usage is OK?
public class A
{
private readonly object locker = new object();
private List<int> myList;
public A()
{
myList = new List<int>()
}
private void MethodeA()
{
lock(locker)
{
myList.Add(10);
}
}
public void MethodeB()
{
CallToMethodInOtherClass(myList);
}
}
public class OtherClass
{
private readonly object locker = new object();
public CallToMethodInOtherClass(List<int> list)
{
lock(locker)
{
int i = list.Count;
}
}
}
Is this thread safe? In OtherClass we lock with a private object so if the class A lock with its private lock can the list still change in the the lock block in OtherClass?
No, it's not thread safe. Add and Count may be executed at the "same" time. You have two different lock objects.
Always lock your own lock object when passing the list:
public void MethodeB()
{
lock(locker)
{
CallToMethodInOtherClass(myList);
}
}
No this is not thread safe. To make it thread safe you can use lock on static objects because they are shared between threads, this may cause deadlocks in the code but it can be handle by maintaining proper order for locking. There is a performance cost associated with lock so use it wisely.
Hope this helps
No, this is not thread-safe. A.MethodeA and OtherClass.CallToMethodInOtherClass are locking on different objects, so they're not mutually exclusive. If you need to protect the access to the list, don't pass it to external code, keep it private.
No, that is not thread-safe.
Your 2 methods are locking on 2 different objects, they will not lock out each other.
Because CallToMethodInOtherClass() only retrieves the value of Count nothing will go horribly wrong. But the lock() around it is useless and misleading.
If the method would make changes in the list you would have a nasty problem. To solve it, change MethodeB:
public void MethodeB()
{
lock(locker) // same instance as MethodA is using
{
CallToMethodInOtherClass(myList);
}
}
No, they have to lock the same object. With your code they both lock on a different and each call could be executed simultaneous.
To make the code thread safe place a lock in MethodeB or use the list itself as lock object.
It actually is thread-safe (purely as a matter of an implementation detail on Count), but:
Thread-safe snippets of code do not a thread-safe application make. You can combine different thread-safe operations into non-thread-safe operations. Indeed, much non-thread-safe code can be broken down into smaller pieces all of which are thread-safe on their own.
It's not thread-safe for the reason you were hoping, which means that extending it further would not be thread-safe.
This code would be thread-safe:
public void CallToMethodInOtherClass(List<int> list)
{
//note we've no locks!
int i = list.Count;
//do something with i but don't touch list again.
}
Call it with any list, and it'll give i a value based on the state of that list, regardless of what other threads are up to. It will not corrupt list. It will not give i an invalid value.
So while this code is also thread-safe:
public void CallToMethodInOtherClass(List<int> list)
{
Console.WriteLine(list[93]); // obviously only works if there's at least 94 items
// but that's nothing to do with thread-safety
}
This code would not be thread-safe:
public void CallToMethodInOtherClass(List<int> list)
{
lock(locker)//same as in the question, different locker to that used elsewhere.
{
int i = list.Count;
if(i > 93)
Console.WriteLine(list[93]);
}
}
Before going further, the two bits I described as thread-safe are not promised to be by the spec for List. Conservative coding would assume they are not thread-safe rather than depending upon implementation details, but I'm going to depend on the implementation details because it affects the question of how to use locks in an important way:
Because there is code operating on list that is not acquiring the lock on locker first, that code is not prevented from running concurrently with CallToMethodInOtherClass. Now, while list.Count is thread-safe and list[93] is tread-safe,* the combination of the two where we depend on the first to ensure that the second works is not thread-safe. Because code outside the lock can affect list, it's possible for code to call Remove or Clear in between Count assuring us that list[93] would work, and list[93] being called.
Now, if we know that list is only ever added to, that's fine, even if a resize is happening concurrently we'll end up with the value of list[93] either way. If something is writing to list[93] and it's a type that .NET will write to atomically (and int is one such type), we'll end up with either the old one or the new one, just as if we'd locked correctly we'd get the old or the new depending on which thread go the lock first. Again, this is an implementation detail not a specified promise, I'm stating this just to point out how the thread-safety given still results in non thread-safe code.
Moving this toward real code. We shouldn't assume that list.Count and list[93] is threadsafe because we weren't promised they would be and that could change, but even if we did have that promise, those two promises won't add up to a promise that they'd be thread-safe together.
The important thing is to use the same lock to protect blocks of code that can interfere with each other. Hence, consider the variant below that is guaranteed to be threadsafe:
public class ThreadSafeList
{
private readonly object locker = new object();
private List<int> myList = new List<int>();
public void Add(int item)
{
lock(locker)
myList.Add(item);
}
public void Clear()
{
lock(locker)
myList.Clear();
}
public int Count
{
lock(locker)
return myList.Count;
}
public int Item(int index)
{
lock(locker)
return myList[index];
}
}
This class is guaranteed to be thread-safe in everything it does. Without depending on any implementation details, there is no method here that will corrupt state or give incorrect results because of what another thread is doing with the same instance. The following code still doesn't work though:
// (l is a ThreadSafeList visible to multiple threads.
if(l.Count > 0)
Console.WriteLine(l[0]);
We've guaranteed the thread-safety of each call 100%, but we haven't guaranteed the combination, and we can't guarantee the combination.
There's two things we can do. We can add a method for the combination. Something like the following would be common for many classes specifically designed for multi-threaded use:
public bool TryGetItem(int index, out int value)
{
lock(locker)
{
if(l.Count > index)
{
value = l[index];
return true;
}
value = 0;
return false;
}
}
This makes the count test and the item retrieval part of a single operation which is guaranteed to be thread-safe.
Alternatively, and most often what we need to do, we have the lock happen at the place where the operations are grouped:
lock(lockerOnL)//used by every other piece of code operating on l
if(l.Count > 0)
Console.WriteLine(l[0]);
Of course, this makes the locks within ThreadSafeList redundant and just a waste of effort, space, and time. This is the main reason that most classes don't provide thread-safety on their instance members - since you can't meaningfully protect groups of calls on members from within the class, it's a waste of time trying to unless the thread-safety promises are very well specified and useful on their own.
To come back to the code in your question:
The lock in CallToMethodInOtherClass should be removed unless OtherClass has its own reason for locking internally. It can't make a meaningful promise that it won't be combined in a non-threadsafe way and adding more locks to a program just increases the complexity of analysing it to be sure there are no deadlocks.
The call to CallToMethodInOtherClass should be protected by the same lock as other operations in that class:
public void MethodeB()
{
lock(locker)
CallToMethodInOtherClass(myList);
}
Then as long as CallToMethodInOtherClass doesn't store myList somewhere it can be seen by other threads later on, it doesn't matter that CallToMethodInOtherClass isn't thread-safe because the only code that can access myList brings its own guarantee not to call it concurrently with other operations on myList.
The two important things are:
When something is described as "thread-safe", know just what it's promising by that, as there are different sorts of promise that fall under "thread-safe" and on its own it just means "I won't put this object into a nonsensical state", which while an important building block, is not a lot on its own.
Lock on groups of operations, with the same lock for each group that'll affect the same data, and guard the access to objects so that there can't possibly be another thread not playing ball with this.
*This is a very limited definition of thread-safe. Calling list[93] on a List<T> where T is a type that will be written and read atomically and we don't know whether it actually has at least 94 items is equally safe whether or not there are other threads operating on it. Of course, the fact that it can throw ArgumentOutOfRangeException in either case is not what most people would consider "safe", but the guarantee we have with multiple threads remains the same as with one. It's that we obtain a stronger guarantee by checking Count in a single thread but not in a multi-thread situation that leads me to describe that as not thread-safe; while that combo still won't corrupt state it can lead to an exception we'd assured ourselves couldn't happen.
Probably the easiest way to do the trick
public class A
{
private List<int> myList;
public A()
{
myList = new List<int>()
}
private void MethodeA()
{
lock(myList)
{
myList.Add(10);
}
}
public void MethodeB()
{
CallToMethodInOtherClass(myList);
}
}
public class OtherClass
{
public CallToMethodInOtherClass(List<int> list)
{
lock(list)
{
int i = list.Count;
}
}
}
Many of the answers have mentioned using a static readonly lock.
However, you really should try to avoid this static lock. It would be easy to create a deadlock where multiple threads are using the static lock.
What you could use instead is one of the .net 4 concurrent collections, these do provide some thread synchronisation on your behalf, so that you do not need to use the locking.
Take a look at the System.collections.Concurrent namespace.
For this example, you could use the ConcurrentBag<T> class.
Ass all the answers say these are different lock objects.
a simple way is to have a static lock object f.ex:
publc class A
{
public static readonly object lockObj = new object();
}
and in both classes use lock like:
lock(A.lockObj)
{
}
I've a class that contains a static collection to store the logged-in users in an ASP.NET MVC application. I just want to know about the below code is thread-safe or not. Do I need to lock the code whenever I add or remove item to the onlineUsers collection.
public class OnlineUsers
{
private static List<string> onlineUsers = new List<string>();
public static EventHandler<string> OnUserAdded;
public static EventHandler<string> OnUserRemoved;
private OnlineUsers()
{
}
static OnlineUsers()
{
}
public static int NoOfOnlineUsers
{
get
{
return onlineUsers.Count;
}
}
public static List<string> GetUsers()
{
return onlineUsers;
}
public static void AddUser(string userName)
{
if (!onlineUsers.Contains(userName))
{
onlineUsers.Add(userName);
if (OnUserAdded != null)
OnUserAdded(null, userName);
}
}
public static void RemoveUser(string userName)
{
if (onlineUsers.Contains(userName))
{
onlineUsers.Remove(userName);
if (OnUserRemoved != null)
OnUserRemoved(null, userName);
}
}
}
That is absolutely not thread safe. Any time 2 threads are doing something (very common in a web application), chaos is possible - exceptions, or silent data loss.
Yes you need some kind of synchronization such as lock; and static is usually a very bad idea for data storage, IMO (unless treated very carefully and limited to things like configuration data).
Also - static events are notorious for a good way to keep object graphs alive unexpectedly. Treat those with caution too; if you subscribe once only, fine - but don't subscribe etc per request.
Also - it isn't just locking the operations, since this line:
return onlineUsers;
returns your list, now unprotected. all access to an item must be synchronized. Personally I'd return a copy, i.e.
lock(syncObj) {
return onlineUsers.ToArray();
}
Finally, returning a .Count from such can be confusing - as it is not guaranteed to still be Count at any point. It is informational at that point in time only.
Yes, you need to lock the onlineUsers to make that code threadsafe.
A few notes:
Using a HashSet<string> instead of the List<string> may be a good idea, since it is much more efficient for operations like this (Contains and Remove especially). This does not change anything on the locking requirements though.
You can declare a class as "static" if it has only static members.
Yes you do need to lock your code.
object padlock = new object
public bool Contains(T item)
{
lock (padlock)
{
return items.Contains(item);
}
}
Yes. You need to lock the collection before you read or write to the collection, since multiple users are potentially being added from different threadpool workers. You should probably also do it on the count as well, though if you're not concerned with 100% accuracy that may not be an issue.
As per Lucero's answer, you need to lock onlineUsers. Also be careful what will clients of your class do with the onlineUsers returned from GetUsers(). I suggest you change your interface - for example use IEnumerable<string> GetUsers() and make sure the lock is used in its implementation. Something like this:
public static IEnumerable<string> GetUsers() {
lock (...) {
foreach (var element in onlineUsers)
yield return element;
// We need foreach, just "return onlineUsers" would release the lock too early!
}
}
Note that this implementation can expose you to deadlocks if users try to call some other method of OnlineUsers that uses lock, while still iterating over the result of GetUsers().
That code it is not thread-safe per se.
I will not make any suggestions relative to your "design", since you didn't ask any. I'll assume you found good reasons for those static members and exposing your list's contents as you did.
However, if you want to make your code thread-safe, you should basically use a lock object to lock on, and wrap the contents of your methods with a lock statement:
private readonly object syncObject = new object();
void SomeMethod()
{
lock (this.syncObject)
{
// Work with your list here
}
}
Beware that those events being raised have the potential to hold the lock for an extended period of time, depending on what the delegates do.
You could omit the lock from the NoOfOnlineUsers property while declaring your list as volatile. However, if you want the Count value to persist for as long as you are using it at a certain moment, use a lock there, as well.
As others suggested here, exposing your list directly, even with a lock, will still pose a "threat" on it's contents. I would go with returning a copy (and that should fit most purposes) as Mark Gravell advised.
Now, since you said you are using this in an ASP.NET environment, it is worth saying that all local and member variables, as well as their member variables, if any, are thread safe.