public class AllViewModel
{
private List<Settings> SettingsList;
public ViewAgendaAllViewModel()
{
client.SupplierListWithSettings(GetSupplierListWithSettings_Completed)
}
public void GetSupplierListWithSettings_Completed(object sender, Supplier_GetListWithSettingsCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error == null)
{
if (e.Result != null)
{
SettingsList = new List<Settings>();
foreach (VCareSupplierDto obj in e.Result)
{
SettingsList.Add(obj);
}
}
}
}
}
Issue: Settinglist propery not getting set because of asynch call.
this is my class i want to synchronus call to ServiceMethod SupplierListWithSettings.
When I will create instance of the AllViewModel it should loaded with setting.
Expected : When i will create instance of AllViewModel it should contain SettingList property.
Correction: SettingsList is getting set, but it sounds like it's not set as soon as you would like.
It sounds like you're asking for this: when you construct an instance of AllViewModel, you expect the SettingsList property to be fully populated before the AllViewModel constructor returns.
While this can be done, there are many reasons why this is probably not a good idea and a dubious design requirement. Making the network call into a synchronous call will block the calling thread (usually, your UI thread) for as long as it takes for the network request to complete, which could be 20 to 30 seconds. Do you really want your application UI to freeze for 30 seconds? Your users are likely to assume your program has crashed or "locked up" and will shut down the program without even realizing that it isn't dead.
Nevertheless, here's how to do it: You can convert the asynchronous call into a synchronous call using something like this (untested) using the .NET 4.0 Task Parallel Library (TPL):
public AllViewModel()
{
var task = Task<List<Settings>>.Factory.StartNew(() =>
client.SupplierListWithSettings((s,e) =>
{
if (e.Error == null && e.Result != null)
{
var list = new List<Settings>();
foreach (VCareSupplierDto obj in e.Result)
{
list.Add(obj);
}
task.SetResult(list);
}
}));
this.SettingsList = task.Result;
}
Again, this is not a good idea. It would be a much better exercise for you to look at what portions of your code are assuming the SettingsList property is populated immediately after the object is constructed and change those dependencies to do something like listen for changes to the SettingsList property and do their work as soon as SettingsList is actually populated asynchronously.
Try to go with the asynchronous flow instead of fighting against it.
Related
I do have a singleton component that manages some information blocks. An information block is a calculated information identified by some characteristics (concrete an Id and a time period). These calculations may take some seconds. All information blocks are stored in a collection.
Some other consumers are using these information blocks. The calculation should start when the first request for this Id and time period comes. I had following flow in mind:
The first consumer requests the data identified by Id and time period.
The component checks if the information block already exists
If not: Create the information block, put it into the collection and start the calculation in a background task. If yes: Take it from the collection
After that the flow goes to the information block:
When the calculation is already finished (by a former call), a callback from the consumer is called with the result of the calculation.
When the calculation is still in process, the callback is called when the calculation is finished.
So long, so good.
The critical section comes when the second (or any other subsequent) call is coming and the calculation is still running. The idea is that the calculation method holds each consumers callback and then when the calculation is finished all consumers callbacks are called.
public class SingletonInformationService
{
private readonly Collection<InformationBlock> blocks = new();
private object syncObject = new();
public void GetInformationBlock(Guid id, TimePersiod timePeriod,
Action<InformationBlock> callOnFinish)
{
InformationBlock block = null;
lock(syncObject)
{
// check out if the block already exists
block = blocks.SingleOrDefault(b => b.Id ...);
if (block == null)
{
block = new InformationBlock(...);
blocks.Add(block);
}
}
block?.BeginCalculation(callOnFinish);
return true;
}
}
public class InformationBlock
{
private Task calculationTask = null;
private CalculationState isCalculating isCalculating = CalculationState.Unknown;
private List<Action<InformationBlock> waitingRoom = new();
internal void BeginCalculation(Action<InformationBlock> callOnFinish)
{
if (isCalculating == CalculationState.Finished)
{
callOnFinish(this);
return;
}
else if (isCalculating == CalculationState.IsRunning)
{
waitingRoom.Add(callOnFinish);
return;
}
// add the first call to the waitingRoom
waitingRoom.Add(callOnFinish);
isCalculating = CalculationState.IsRunning;
calculationTask = Task.Run(() => { // run the calculation})
.ContinueWith(taskResult =>
{
//.. apply the calculation result to local properties
this.Property1 = taskResult.Result.Property1;
// set the state to mark this instance as complete
isCalculating = CalculationState.Finished;
// inform all calls about the result
waitingRoom.ForEach(c => c(this));
waitingRoom.Clear();
}, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
}
}
Is that approach a good idea? Do you see any failures or possible deadlocks? The method BeginCalculation might be called more than once while the calculation is running. Should I await for the calculationTask?
To have deadlocks, you'll need some cycles: object A depends of object B, that depends on object A again (image below). As I see, that's not your case, since the InformationBlock class doesn't access the service, but is only called by it.
The lock block is also very small, so probably it'll not put you in troubles.
You could look for the Thread-Safe Collection from C# standard libs. This could simplify your code.
I suggest you to use a ConcurrentDictionary, because it's fastest then iterate over the collection every request.
I'm writing a program that will analyze changes in the stock market.
Every time the candles on the stock charts are updated, my algorithm scans every chart for certain pieces of data. I've noticed that this process is taking about 0.6 seconds each time, freezing my application. Its not getting stuck in a loop, and there are no other problems like exception errors slowing it down. It just takes a bit of time.
To solve this, I'm trying to see if I can thread the algorithm.
In order to call the algorithm to check over the charts, I have to call this:
checkCharts.RunAlgo();
As threads need an object, I'm trying to figure out how to run the RunAlgo(), but I'm not having any luck.
How can I have a thread run this method in my checkCharts object? Due to back propagating data, I can't start a new checkCharts object. I have to continue using that method from the existing object.
EDIT:
I tried this:
M4.ALProj.BotMain checkCharts = new ALProj.BotMain();
Thread algoThread = new Thread(checkCharts.RunAlgo);
It tells me that the checkCharts part of checkCharts.RunAlgo is gives me, "An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property "M4.ALProj.BotMain"."
In a specific if statement, I was going to put the algoThread.Start(); Any idea what I did wrong there?
The answer to your question is actually very simple:
Thread myThread = new Thread(checkCharts.RunAlgo);
myThread.Start();
However, the more complex part is to make sure that when the method RunAlgo accesses variables inside the checkCharts object, this happens in a thread-safe manner.
See Thread Synchronization for help on how to synchronize access to data from multiple threads.
I would rather use Task.Run than Thread. Task.Run utilizes the ThreadPool which has been optimized to handle various loads effectively. You will also get all the goodies of Task.
await Task.Run(()=> checkCharts.RunAlgo);
Try this code block. Its a basic boilerplate but you can build on and extend it quite easily.
//If M4.ALProj.BotMain needs to be recreated for each run then comment this line and uncomment the one in DoRunParallel()
private static M4.ALProj.BotMain checkCharts = new M4.ALProj.BotMain();
private static object SyncRoot = new object();
private static System.Threading.Thread algoThread = null;
private static bool ReRunOnComplete = false;
public static void RunParallel()
{
lock (SyncRoot)
{
if (algoThread == null)
{
System.Threading.ThreadStart TS = new System.Threading.ThreadStart(DoRunParallel);
algoThread = new System.Threading.Thread(TS);
}
else
{
//Recieved a recalc call while still calculating
ReRunOnComplete = true;
}
}
}
public static void DoRunParallel()
{
bool ReRun = false;
try
{
//If M4.ALProj.BotMain needs to be recreated for each run then uncomment this line and comment private static version above
//M4.ALProj.BotMain checkCharts = new M4.ALProj.BotMain();
checkCharts.RunAlgo();
}
finally
{
lock (SyncRoot)
{
algoThread = null;
ReRun = ReRunOnComplete;
ReRunOnComplete = false;
}
}
if (ReRun)
{
RunParallel();
}
}
I have a slow and expensive method that return some data for me:
public Data GetData(){...}
I don't want to wait until this method will execute. Rather than I want to return a cached data immediately.
I have a class CachedData that contains one property Data cachedData.
So I want to create another method public CachedData GetCachedData() that will initiate a new task(call GetData inside of it) and immediately return cached data and after task will finish we will update the cache.
I need to have thread safe GetCachedData() because I will have multiple request that will call this method.
I will have a light ping "is there anything change?" each minute and if it will return true (cachedData != currentData) then I will call GetCachedData().
I'm new in C#. Please, help me to implement this method.
I'm using .net framework 4.5.2
The basic idea is clear:
You have a Data property which is wrapper around an expensive function call.
In order to have some response immediately the property holds a cached value and performs updating in the background.
No need for an event when the updater is done because you poll, for now.
That seems like a straight-forward design. At some point you may want to use events, but that can be added later.
Depending on the circumstances it may be necessary to make access to the property thread-safe. I think that if the Data cache is a simple reference and no other data is updated together with it, a lock is not necessary, but you may want to declare the reference volatile so that the reading thread does not rely on a stale cached (ha!) version. This post seems to have good links which discuss the issues.
If you will not call GetCachedData at the same time, you may not use lock. If data is null (for sure first run) we will wait long method to finish its work.
public class SlowClass
{
private static object _lock;
private static Data _cachedData;
public SlowClass()
{
_lock = new object();
}
public void GetCachedData()
{
var task = new Task(DoStuffLongRun);
task.Start();
if (_cachedData == null)
task.Wait();
}
public Data GetData()
{
if (_cachedData == null)
GetCachedData();
return _cachedData;
}
private void DoStuffLongRun()
{
lock (_lock)
{
Console.WriteLine("Locked Entered");
Thread.Sleep(5000);//Do Long Stuff
_cachedData = new Data();
}
}
}
I have tested on console application.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var mySlow = new SlowClass();
var mySlow2 = new SlowClass();
mySlow.GetCachedData();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
mySlow.GetData();
mySlow2.GetData();
}
mySlow.GetCachedData();
Console.Read();
}
Maybe you can use the MemoryCache class,
as explained here in MSDN
I have a silverlight 5 app that depends on several asynchronous calls to web services to populate the attributes of newly created graphics. I am trying to find a way to handle those asynchronous calls synchronously. I have tried the suggestions listed in this article and this one. i have tried the many suggestions regarding the Dispatcher object. None have worked well, so I am clearly missing something...
Here is what I have:
public partial class MainPage : UserControl {
AutoResetEvent waitHandle = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private void AssignNewAttributeValuesToSplitPolygons(List<Graphic> splitGraphics)
{
for (int i = 0; i < splitGraphics.Count; i++)
{
Graphic g = splitGraphics[i];
Thread lookupThread1 = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(SetStateCountyUtm));
lookupThread1.Start(g);
waitHandle.WaitOne();
Thread lookupThread2 = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(SetCongressionalDistrict));
lookupThread1.Start(g);
waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
private void SetStateCountyUtm(object graphic)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate() {
WrapperSetStateCountyUtm((Graphic)graphic);
});
}
private void WrapperSetStateCountyUtm(Graphic graphic)
{
GISQueryEngine gisQEngine = new GISQueryEngine();
gisQEngine.StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent += new GISQueryEngine.StateCountyUtmLookupEventHandler(gisQEngine_StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent);
gisQEngine.PerformStateCountyUtmQuery(graphic.Geometry, graphic.Attributes["clu_number"].ToString());
}
void gisQEngine_StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent(object sender, StateCountyUtmLookupCompleted stateCountyUtmLookupEventArgs)
{
string fred = stateCountyUtmLookupEventArgs.
waitHandle.Set();
}
}
public class GISQueryEngine
{
public void PerformStateCountyUtmQuery(Geometry inSpatialQueryGeometry, string cluNumber)
{
QueryTask queryTask = new QueryTask(stateandCountyServiceURL);
queryTask.ExecuteCompleted += new EventHandler<QueryEventArgs>(queryTask_StateCountyLookupExecuteCompleted);
queryTask.Failed += new EventHandler<TaskFailedEventArgs>(queryTask_StateCountyLookupFailed);
Query spatialQueryParam = new ESRI.ArcGIS.Client.Tasks.Query();
spatialQueryParam.OutFields.AddRange(new string[] { "*" });
spatialQueryParam.ReturnGeometry = false;
spatialQueryParam.Geometry = inSpatialQueryGeometry;
spatialQueryParam.SpatialRelationship = SpatialRelationship.esriSpatialRelIntersects;
spatialQueryParam.OutSpatialReference = inSpatialQueryGeometry.SpatialReference;
queryTask.ExecuteAsync(spatialQueryParam, cluNumber);
}
//and a whole bunch of other stuff i can add if needed
}
If I leave the 'waitHandle.WaitOne()' method uncommented, no code beyond that method is ever called, at least that I can see with the step through debugger. The application just hangs.
If I comment out the 'waitHandle.WaitOne()', everything runs just fine - except asynchronously. In other words, when the app reads the Attribute values of the new graphics, those values may or may not be set depending on how quickly the asynch methods return.
Thanks for any help.
It's going to be rather difficult to work through a problem like this as there are a few issues you'll need to address. SL is by nature asynch so forcing it to try and work synchronously is usually a very bad idea. You shouldn't do it unless it's absolutely necessary.
Is there a reason that you cannot wait for an async. callback? From what I see you appear to be making two calls for every state that is being rendered. I'm guessing the concern is that one call must complete before the second is made? In scenarios like this, I would kick off the first async call, and in it's response kick off the second call passing along the result you'll want to use from the first call. The second call response updates the provided references.
However, in cases where you've got a significant number of states to update, this results in a rather chatty, and difficult to debug set of calls. I'd really be looking at creating a service call that can accept a set of state references and pass back a data structure set for the values to be updated all in one hit. (or at least grouping them up to one call per state if the batch will be too time consuming and you want to render/interact with visual elements as they load up.)
I have generated the proxy classes for a web service in Visual Studio with 'Add Web Reference'. The generated RTWebService class has a method SetValueAsync. I extended this class and added a SetValueRequest which keeps track of the requests and cancels all pending requests when an error occurs. With every request I store the userState object in an ArrayList I created as follows:
requests = ArrayList.Synchronized(new ArrayList());
I created a method:
public void CancelPendingRequests() {
lock (requests.SyncRoot) {
if (requests.Count > 0) {
foreach (object request in requests) {
this.CancelAsync(request);
}
requests.Clear();
}
}
}
I call this method when a request returns on the SetValueCompleted event:
private void onRequestComplete(
object sender,
Service.SetValueCompletedEventArgs args
) {
lock (syncResponse) {
if (args.Cancelled) {
return;
}
if (args.UserState != null) {
requests.Remove(args.UserState);
}
if (args.Error != null) {
CancelPendingRequests();
}
}
}
To start a new request I call:
public void SetValueRequest(string tag, string value) {
var request = new object();
this.SetValueAsync(tag, value, request);
requests.Add(request);
}
Everytime I make a request and at the same time a response returns with an error, I get a TargetInvocationException in the CancelPendingRequests. The inner exception is an InvalidOperationException on an ArrayList in the CancelPendingRequests method saying:
Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute.
So it seems SetValueRequest has modified the requests object while I was enumerating it. I thought this was impossible because I used the synchronized wrapper for ArrayList and use the SyncRoot to synchronize the enumeration. I'm a bit stuck on this so if anyone has an idea?
never use SyncRoot it's inherently broken. (if you share the list you just invite a deadlock)
Don't use ArrayList, it should be marked "Deprecated".
ArrayList.Synchronized return's something that works more slowly but is not thread safe, i.e. it's not thread safe during a set of operations.
you can either use something from System.Collection.Concurrent, or use ReaderWriterLockSlim
ORIGINAL ANSWER
I worked around the problem by removing the enumeration. I now use:
public void CancelPendingRequests() {
lock (requests.SyncRoot) {
if (requests.Count > 0) {
for (int i = 0; i < requests.Count; i++) {
this.CancelAsync(requests[i]);
}
requests.Clear();
}
}
}
This seems to do the trick. I'm still a bit worried that this lock (requests.SyncRoot) didn't work on the enumeration so why would it work here? Anyway, I am now unable to reproduce the exception like i could before so I consider this problem as solved. I can't waste any more time on this.
EDIT
Forget my silly answer above. I was working on a project and needed to make progress. I tracked down the problem now:
So it appeared this bug was not multithreading related at all. All code was executed on the same thread, I didn't need those locks. The problem lies in the fact that I was canceling the requests in my enumeration. The CancelAsync method raises the SetValueCompleted event which in turn calls requests.Remove, thus modifying the requests inside the enumeration. I Learnt some pitfall with events today.
I solved the problem by enumerating over a local copy of the requests object which I created with the ToArray method.
public void CancelPendingRequests()
if (requests.Count > 0) {
for (object request in requests.ToArray()) {
this.CancelAsync(request);
}
}
}
Trying adding a local variable to your CancelPendingRequests method for each request object like this:
public void CancelPendingRequests() {
lock (requests.SyncRoot)
{
if (requests.Count > 0)
{
foreach (object request in requests)
{
object currentRequest = request; //Add this
this.CancelAsync(currentRequest);
}
requests.Clear();
}
}
}