Develop Reference

How to pause task running on a worker thread and wait for user input?

If I have a task running on a worker thread and when it finds something wrong, is it possible to pause and wait for the user to intervene before continuing?
For example, suppose I have something like this:
async void btnStartTask_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Task.Run(() => LongRunningTask());
}
// CPU-bound
bool LongRunningTask()
{
// Establish some connection here.
// Do some work here.
List<Foo> incorrectValues = GetIncorrectValuesFromAbove();
if (incorrectValues.Count > 0)
{
// Here, I want to present the "incorrect values" to the user (on the UI thread)
// and let them select whether to modify a value, ignore it, or abort.
var confirmedValues = WaitForUserInput(incorrectValues);
}
// Continue processing.
}
Is it possible to substitute WaitForUserInput() with something that runs on the UI thread, waits for the user's intervention, and then acts accordingly? If so, how? I'm not looking for complete code or anything; if someone could point me in the right direction, I would be grateful.

What you're looking for is almost exactly Progress<T>, except you want to have the thing that reports progress get a task back with some information that they can await and inspect the results of. Creating Progress<T> yourself isn't terribly hard., and you can reasonably easily adapt it so that it computes a result.
public interface IPrompt<TResult, TInput>
{
Task<TResult> Prompt(TInput input);
}
public class Prompt<TResult, TInput> : IPrompt<TResult, TInput>
{
private SynchronizationContext context;
private Func<TInput, Task<TResult>> prompt;
public Prompt(Func<TInput, Task<TResult>> prompt)
{
context = SynchronizationContext.Current ?? new SynchronizationContext();
this.prompt += prompt;
}
Task<TResult> IPrompt<TResult, TInput>.Prompt(TInput input)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<TResult>();
context.Post(data => prompt((TInput)data)
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
if (task.IsCanceled)
tcs.TrySetCanceled();
if (task.IsFaulted)
tcs.TrySetException(task.Exception.InnerExceptions);
else
tcs.TrySetResult(task.Result);
}), input);
return tcs.Task;
}
}
Now you simply need to have an asynchronous method that accepts the data from the long running process and returns a task with whatever the user interface's response is.

You can use TaskCompletionSource to generate a task that can be awaited within the LongRunningTask.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApp5
{
class Program
{
private static event Action<string> Input;
public static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
var inputTask = InputTask();
var longRunningTask = Task.Run(() => LongRunningTask());
await Task.WhenAll(inputTask, longRunningTask);
}
private static async Task InputTask()
{
await Task.Yield();
while(true)
{
var input = await Console.In.ReadLineAsync();
Input?.Invoke(input);
}
}
static async Task<bool> LongRunningTask()
{
SomeExpensiveCall();
var incorrectValues = GetIncorrectValuesFromAbove();
if (incorrectValues.Count > 0)
{
var confirmedValues = await WaitForUserInput(incorrectValues).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
// Continue processing.
return true;
}
private static void SomeExpensiveCall()
{
}
private static Task<string> WaitForUserInput(IList<string> incorrectValues)
{
var taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<string>();
Console.Write("Input Data: ");
try
{
void EventHandler(string input)
{
Input -= EventHandler;
taskCompletionSource.TrySetResult(input);
}
Input += EventHandler;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
taskCompletionSource.TrySetException(e);
}
return taskCompletionSource.Task;
}
private static IList<string> GetIncorrectValuesFromAbove()
{
return new List<string> { "Test" };
}
}
}
Of course in this example you could have just called await Console.In.ReadLineAsync() directly, but this code is to simulate an environment where you only have an event based API.

There are several ways to solve this problem, with the Control.Invoke being probably the most familiar. Here is a more TPL-ish approach. You start by declaring a UI related scheduler as a class field:
private TaskScheduler _uiScheduler;
Then initialize it:
public MyForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
_uiScheduler = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext();
}
Then you convert your synchronous LongRunning method to an asynchronous method. This means that it must return Task<bool> instead of bool. It must also have the async modifier, and by convention be named with the Async suffix:
async Task<bool> LongRunningAsync()
Finally you use the await operator in order to wait for the user's input, which will be a Task configured to run on the captured UI scheduler:
async Task<bool> LongRunningAsync()
{
// Establish some connection here.
// Do some work here.
List<Foo> incorrectValues = GetIncorrectValuesFromAbove();
if (incorrectValues.Count > 0)
{
// Here, I want to present the "incorrect values" to the user (on the UI thread)
// and let them select whether to modify a value, ignore it, or abort.
var confirmedValues = await Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
return WaitForUserInput(incorrectValues);
}, default, TaskCreationOptions.None, _uiScheduler);
}
// Continue processing.
}
Starting the long running task is the same as before. The Task.Run understands async delegates, so you don't have to do something special after making the method async.
var longRunningTask = Task.Run(() => LongRunningAsync());
This should be enough, provided that you just intend to show a dialog box to the user. The Form.ShowDialog is a blocking method, so the WaitForUserInput method needs not to be asynchronous. If you had to allow the user to interact freely with the main form, the problem would be much more difficult to solve.

Another example using Invoke() and a ManualResetEvent. Let me know if you need help with the form code; setting up a constructor, using DialogResult, or creating a property to hold the "confirmedValues":
bool LongRunningTask()
{
// Establish some connection here.
// Do some work here.
List<Foo> incorrectValues = GetIncorrectValuesFromAbove();
var confirmedValues;
if (incorrectValues.Count > 0)
{
DialogResult result;
ManualResetEvent mre = new ManualResetEvent(false);
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
// pass in incorrectValues to the form
// you'll have to build a constructor in it to accept them
frmSomeForm frm = new frmSomeForm(incorrectValues);
result = frm.ShowDialog();
if (result == DialogResult.OK)
{
confirmedValues = frm.confirmedValues; // get the confirmed values somehow
}
mre.Set(); // release the block below
});
mre.WaitOne(); // blocks until "mre" is set
}
// Continue processing.
}

Close task before run again

I working on real-time search. At this moment on property setter which is bounded to edit text, I call a method which calls API and then fills the list with the result it looks like this:
private string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
SetProperty(ref searchPhrase, value);
RunOnMainThread(SearchResult.Clear);
isAllFriends = false;
currentPage = 0;
RunInAsync(LoadData);
}
}
private async Task LoadData()
{
var response = await connectionRepository.GetConnections(currentPage,
pageSize, searchPhrase);
foreach (UserConnection uc in response)
{
if (uc.Type != UserConnection.TypeEnum.Awaiting)
{
RunOnMainThread(() =>
SearchResult.Add(new ConnectionUser(uc)));
}
}
}
But this way is totally useless because of it totally mashup list of a result if a text is entering quickly. So to prevent this I want to run this method async in a property but if a property is changed again I want to kill the previous Task and star it again. How can I achieve this?

Some informations from this thread:
create a CancellationTokenSource
var ctc = new CancellationTokenSource();
create a method doing the async work
private static Task ExecuteLongCancellableMethod(CancellationToken token)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// more code here
// check again if this task is canceled
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// more code
}
}
It is important to have this checks for cancel in the code.
Execute the function:
var cancellable = ExecuteLongCancellableMethod(ctc.Token);
To stop the long running execution use
ctc.Cancel();
For further details please consult the linked thread.

This question can be answered in many different ways. However IMO I would look at creating a class that
Delays itself automatically for X (ms) before performing the seach
Has the ability to be cancelled at any time as the search request changes.
Realistically this will change your code design, and should encapsulate the logic for both 1 & 2 in a separate class.
My initial thoughts are (and none of this is tested and mostly pseudo code).
class ConnectionSearch
{
public ConnectionSearch(string phrase, Action<object> addAction)
{
_searchPhrase = phrase;
_addAction = addAction;
_cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
}
readonly string _searchPhrase = null;
readonly Action<object> _addAction;
readonly CancellationTokenSource _cancelSource;
public void Cancel()
{
_cancelSource?.Cancel();
}
public async void PerformSearch()
{
await Task.Delay(300); //await 300ms between keystrokes
if (_cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
//continue your code keep checking for
//loop your dataset
//call _addAction?.Invoke(uc);
}
}
This is basic, really just encapsulates the logic for both points 1 & 2, you will need to adapt the code to do the search.
Next you could change your property to cancel a previous running instance, and then start another instance immediatly after something like below.
ConnectionSearch connectionSearch;
string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
//do your setter work
if(connectionSearch != null)
{
connectionSearch.Cancel();
}
connectionSearch = new ConnectionSearch(value, addConnectionUser);
connectionSearch.PerformSearch();
}
}
void addConnectionUser(object uc)
{
//pperform your add logic..
}
The code is pretty straight forward, however you will see in the setter is simply cancelling an existing request and then creating a new request. You could put some disposal cleanup logic in place but this should get you started.

You can implement some sort of debouncer which will encapsulate the logics of task result debouncing, i.e. it will assure if you run many tasks, then only the latest task result will be used:
public class TaskDebouncer<TResult>
{
public delegate void TaskDebouncerHandler(TResult result, object sender);
public event TaskDebouncerHandler OnCompleted;
public event TaskDebouncerHandler OnDebounced;
private Task _lastTask;
private object _lock = new object();
public void Run(Task<TResult> task)
{
lock (_lock)
{
_lastTask = task;
}
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
if (t.IsFaulted)
throw t.Exception;
lock (_lock)
{
if (_lastTask == task)
{
OnCompleted?.Invoke(t.Result, this);
}
else
{
OnDebounced?.Invoke(t.Result, this);
}
}
});
}
public async Task WaitLast()
{
await _lastTask;
}
}
Then, you can just do:
private readonly TaskDebouncer<Connections[]> _connectionsDebouncer = new TaskDebouncer<Connections[]>();
public ClassName()
{
_connectionsDebouncer.OnCompleted += OnConnectionUpdate;
}
public void OnConnectionUpdate(Connections[] connections, object sender)
{
RunOnMainThread(SearchResult.Clear);
isAllFriends = false;
currentPage = 0;
foreach (var conn in connections)
RunOnMainThread(() => SearchResult.Add(new ConnectionUser(conn)));
}
private string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
SetProperty(ref searchPhrase, value);
_connectionsDebouncer.Add(RunInAsync(LoadData));
}
}
private async Task<Connection[]> LoadData()
{
return await connectionRepository
.GetConnections(currentPage, pageSize, searchPhrase)
.Where(conn => conn.Type != UserConnection.TypeEnum.Awaiting)
.ToArray();
}
It is not pretty clear what RunInAsync and RunOnMainThread methods are.
I guess, you don't actually need them.

How to implement generic callbacks using the C# Task Parallel Library and IProducerConsumerCollection?

I have a component that submits requests to a web-based API, but these requests must be throttled so as not to contravene the API's data limits. This means that all requests must pass through a queue to control the rate at which they are submitted, but they can (and should) execute concurrently to achieve maximum throughput. Each request must return some data to the calling code at some point in the future when it completes.
I'm struggling to create a nice model to handle the return of data.
Using a BlockingCollection I can't just return a Task<TResult> from the Schedule method, because the enqueuing and dequeuing processes are at either ends of the buffer. So instead I create a RequestItem<TResult> type that contains a callback of the form Action<Task<TResult>>.
The idea is that once an item has been pulled from the queue the callback can be invoked with the started task, but I've lost the generic type parameters by that point and I'm left using reflection and all kinds of nastiness (if it's even possible).
For example:
public class RequestScheduler
{
private readonly BlockingCollection<IRequestItem> _queue = new BlockingCollection<IRequestItem>();
public RequestScheduler()
{
this.Start();
}
// This can't return Task<TResult>, so returns void.
// Instead RequestItem is generic but this poses problems when adding to the queue
public void Schedule<TResult>(RequestItem<TResult> request)
{
_queue.Add(request);
}
private void Start()
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
foreach (var item in _queue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
// I want to be able to use the original type parameters here
// is there a nice way without reflection?
// ProcessItem submits an HttpWebRequest
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => ProcessItem(item))
.ContinueWith(t => { item.Callback(t); });
}
});
}
public void Stop()
{
_queue.CompleteAdding();
}
}
public class RequestItem<TResult> : IRequestItem
{
public IOperation<TResult> Operation { get; set; }
public Action<Task<TResult>> Callback { get; set; }
}
How can I continue to buffer my requests but return a Task<TResult> to the client when the request is pulled from the buffer and submitted to the API?

First, you can return Task<TResult> from Schedule(), you just need to use TaskCompletionSource for that.
Second, to get around the genericity issue, you can hide all of it inside (non-generic) Actions. In Schedule(), create an action using a lambda that does exactly what you need. The consuming loop will then execute that action, it doesn't need to know what's inside.
Third, I don't understand why are you starting a new Task in each iteration of the loop. For one, it means you won't actually get any throttling.
With these modifications, the code could look like this:
public class RequestScheduler
{
private readonly BlockingCollection<Action> m_queue = new BlockingCollection<Action>();
public RequestScheduler()
{
this.Start();
}
private void Start()
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
foreach (var action in m_queue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
action();
}
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
}
public Task<TResult> Schedule<TResult>(IOperation<TResult> operation)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<TResult>();
Action action = () =>
{
try
{
tcs.SetResult(ProcessItem(operation));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
tcs.SetException(e);
}
};
m_queue.Add(action);
return tcs.Task;
}
private T ProcessItem<T>(IOperation<T> operation)
{
// whatever
}
}

Pass delegate together with parameter to a function

I want enqueue a list of tasks and then perform on certain event. Code:
internal class MyClass
{
private Queue<Task> m_taskQueue;
protected MyClass()
{
m_taskQueue = new Queue<Task>();
}
public delegate bool Task(object[] args);
public void EnqueueTask(Task task)
{
m_taskQueue.Enqueue(task);
}
public virtual bool Save()
{
// save by processing work queue
while (m_taskQueue.Count > 0)
{
var task = m_taskQueue.Dequeue();
var workItemResult = task.Invoke();
if (!workItemResult)
{
// give up on a failure
m_taskQueue.Clear();
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}
Each delegate task may have their own list of parameters: Task(object[] args). My question is how to pass the parameter to each task for the task queue?

Okay, now we have a bit more information, it sounds like your EnqueueTask method should actually look like this:
public void EnqueueTask(Task task, object[] values)
Right?
For starters I would avoid using the name Task, which is already part of the core of .NET 4 and will become very prominent in .NET 5. As Joshua said, you've basically got a Func<object[], bool>.
Next, you could keep two lists - one for the delegates and one for the values, but it's easier just to keep a Queue<Func<bool>> like this:
private readonly Queue<Func<bool>> taskQueue = new Queue<Func<bool>>();
public void EnqueueTask(Task task, object[] values)
{
taskQueue.Enqueue(() => task(values));
}
Then the rest of your code will actually work "as is". The lambda expression there will capture values and task, so when you invoke the Func<bool>, it will supply those values to the original delegate.

Provided understanding your question correctly you just pass the information like a normal call. Have you considered using Func? You can just pass arguments to the Task.Invoke i.e. Task.Invoke([arguments here as a *single* object array]).
object[] arguments = null; // assign arguments to something
var workItemResult = task.Invoke(arguments);
Below is an example with the Func type.
internal class MyClass
{
private Queue<Func<object[], bool>> m_taskQueue;
protected MyClass()
{
m_taskQueue = new Queue<Func<object[], bool>>();
}
public void EnqueueTask(Func<object[], bool> task)
{
m_taskQueue.Enqueue(task);
}
public virtual bool Save()
{
object[] arguments = null; // assign arguments to something
// save by processing work queue
while (m_taskQueue.Count > 0)
{
var task = m_taskQueue.Dequeue();
var workItemResult = task(arguments);
if (!workItemResult)
{
// give up on a failure
m_taskQueue.Clear();
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}

Async result handle to return to callers

I have a method that queues some work to be executed asynchronously. I'd like to return some sort of handle to the caller that can be polled, waited on, or used to fetch the return value from the operation, but I can't find a class or interface that's suitable for the task.
BackgroundWorker comes close, but it's geared to the case where the worker has its own dedicated thread, which isn't true in my case. IAsyncResult looks promising, but the provided AsyncResult implementation is also unusable for me. Should I implement IAsyncResult myself?
Clarification:
I have a class that conceptually looks like this:
class AsyncScheduler
{
private List<object> _workList = new List<object>();
private bool _finished = false;
public SomeHandle QueueAsyncWork(object workObject)
{
// simplified for the sake of example
_workList.Add(workObject);
return SomeHandle;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
foreach (object workObject in _workList)
{
if (!workObject.IsFinished)
{
workObject.DoSomeWork();
}
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
The QueueAsyncWork function pushes a work item onto the polling list for a dedicated work thread, of which there will only over be one. My problem is not with writing the QueueAsyncWork function--that's fine. My question is, what do I return to the caller? What should SomeHandle be?
The existing .Net classes for this are geared towards the situation where the asynchronous operation can be encapsulated in a single method call that returns. That's not the case here--all of the work objects do their work on the same thread, and a complete work operation might span multiple calls to workObject.DoSomeWork(). In this case, what's a reasonable approach for offering the caller some handle for progress notification, completion, and getting the final outcome of the operation?

Yes, implement IAsyncResult (or rather, an extended version of it, to provide for progress reporting).
public class WorkObjectHandle : IAsyncResult, IDisposable
{
private int _percentComplete;
private ManualResetEvent _waitHandle;
public int PercentComplete {
get {return _percentComplete;}
set
{
if (value < 0 || value > 100) throw new InvalidArgumentException("Percent complete should be between 0 and 100");
if (_percentComplete = 100) throw new InvalidOperationException("Already complete");
if (value == 100 && Complete != null) Complete(this, new CompleteArgs(WorkObject));
_percentComplete = value;
}
public IWorkObject WorkObject {get; private set;}
public object AsyncState {get {return WorkObject;}}
public bool IsCompleted {get {return _percentComplete == 100;}}
public event EventHandler<CompleteArgs> Complete; // CompleteArgs in a usual pattern
// you may also want to have Progress event
public bool CompletedSynchronously {get {return false;}}
public WaitHandle
{
get
{
// initialize it lazily
if (_waitHandle == null)
{
ManualResetEvent newWaitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _waitHandle, newWaitHandle, null) != null)
newWaitHandle.Dispose();
}
return _waitHandle;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_waitHandle != null)
_waitHandle.Dispose();
// dispose _workObject too, if needed
}
public WorkObjectHandle(IWorkObject workObject)
{
WorkObject = workObject;
_percentComplete = 0;
}
}
public class AsyncScheduler
{
private Queue<WorkObjectHandle> _workQueue = new Queue<WorkObjectHandle>();
private bool _finished = false;
public WorkObjectHandle QueueAsyncWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
var handle = new WorkObjectHandle(workObject);
lock(_workQueue)
{
_workQueue.Enqueue(handle);
}
return handle;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
WorkObjectHandle handle;
lock(_workQueue)
{
if (_workQueue.Count == 0) break;
handle = _workQueue.Dequeue();
}
try
{
var workObject = handle.WorkObject;
// do whatever you want with workObject, set handle.PercentCompleted, etc.
}
finally
{
handle.Dispose();
}
}
}
}

If I understand correctly you have a collection of work objects (IWorkObject) that each complete a task via multiple calls to a DoSomeWork method. When an IWorkObject object has finished its work you'd like to respond to that somehow and during the process you'd like to respond to any reported progress?
In that case I'd suggest you take a slightly different approach. You could take a look at the Parallel Extension framework (blog). Using the framework, you could write something like this:
public void QueueWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
Task.TaskFactory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (!workObject.Finished)
{
int progress = workObject.DoSomeWork();
DoSomethingWithReportedProgress(workObject, progress);
}
WorkObjectIsFinished(workObject);
});
}
Some things to note:
QueueWork now returns void. The reason for this is that the actions that occur when progress is reported or when the task completes have become part of the thread that executes the work. You could of course return the Task that the factory creates and return that from the method (to enable polling for example).
The progress-reporting and finish-handling are now part of the thread because you should always avoid polling when possible. Polling is more expensive because usually you either poll too frequently (too early) or not often enough (too late). There is no reason you can't report on the progress and finishing of the task from within the thread that is running the task.
The above could also be implemented using the (lower level) ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem method.
Using QueueUserWorkItem:
public void QueueWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(() =>
{
while (!workObject.Finished)
{
int progress = workObject.DoSomeWork();
DoSomethingWithReportedProgress(workObject, progress);
}
WorkObjectIsFinished(workObject);
});
}

The WorkObject class can contain the properties that need to be tracked.
public class WorkObject
{
public PercentComplete { get; private set; }
public IsFinished { get; private set; }
public void DoSomeWork()
{
// work done here
this.PercentComplete = 50;
// some more work done here
this.PercentComplete = 100;
this.IsFinished = true;
}
}
Then in your example:
Change the collection from a List to a Dictionary that can hold Guid values (or any other means of uniquely identifying the value).
Expose the correct WorkObject's properties by having the caller pass the Guid that it received from QueueAsyncWork.
I'm assuming that you'll start WorkThread asynchronously (albeit, the only asynchronous thread); plus, you'll have to make retrieving the dictionary values and WorkObject properties thread-safe.
private Dictionary<Guid, WorkObject> _workList =
new Dictionary<Guid, WorkObject>();
private bool _finished = false;
public Guid QueueAsyncWork(WorkObject workObject)
{
Guid guid = Guid.NewGuid();
// simplified for the sake of example
_workList.Add(guid, workObject);
return guid;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
foreach (WorkObject workObject in _workList)
{
if (!workObject.IsFinished)
{
workObject.DoSomeWork();
}
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
// an example of getting the WorkObject's property
public int GetPercentComplete(Guid guid)
{
WorkObject workObject = null;
if (!_workList.TryGetValue(guid, out workObject)
throw new Exception("Unable to find Guid");
return workObject.PercentComplete;
}

The simplest way to do this is described here. Suppose you have a method string DoSomeWork(int). You then create a delegate of the correct type, for example:
Func<int, string> myDelegate = DoSomeWork;
Then you call the BeginInvoke method on the delegate:
int parameter = 10;
myDelegate.BeginInvoke(parameter, Callback, null);
The Callback delegate will be called once your asynchronous call has completed. You can define this method as follows:
void Callback(IAsyncResult result)
{
var asyncResult = (AsyncResult) result;
var #delegate = (Func<int, string>) asyncResult.AsyncDelegate;
string methodReturnValue = #delegate.EndInvoke(result);
}
Using the described scenario, you can also poll for results or wait on them. Take a look at the url I provided for more info.
Regards,
Ronald

If you don't want to use async callbacks, you can use an explicit WaitHandle, such as a ManualResetEvent:
public abstract class WorkObject : IDispose
{
ManualResetEvent _waitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void DoSomeWork()
{
try
{
this.DoSomeWorkOverride();
}
finally
{
_waitHandle.Set();
}
}
protected abstract DoSomeWorkOverride();
public void WaitForCompletion()
{
_waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_waitHandle.Dispose();
}
}
And in your code you could say
using (var workObject = new SomeConcreteWorkObject())
{
asyncScheduler.QueueAsyncWork(workObject);
workObject.WaitForCompletion();
}
Don't forget to call Dispose on your workObject though.
You can always use alternate implementations which create a wrapper like this for every work object, and who call _waitHandle.Dispose() in WaitForCompletion(), you can lazily instantiate the wait handle (careful: race conditions ahead), etc. (That's pretty much what BeginInvoke does for delegates.)