Develop Reference

Multiple backgroundworkers calling same function with different parameters

I have two backgroundworkers that are calling one function in an infinite while loop but with different input parameters. There are a lot of variables used in that function.
Question: what is the best approach for defining the variables used inside the function?
If I define the variables globally, the performance is great. BUT, I must use lock a lot of times to make sure there is no conflicts when the variables are modified.
If I define the variables locally inside the function, there would be no conflict (obviously), but the code gets 2-3 times slower. This is as expected, because it is just like defining variables inside loop instead of defining them outside the loop.
One solution is to make another copy of that function and define separate global variables for use for the second thread and second function called in that thread. This may be good in terms of performance, but I believe it is not the most elegant approach.
Any opinion/solution is appreciated.

Create a Class that contains Properties for all the variables. Have each BackgroundWorker create their own instance of this class and pass it to the function as a Argument.
Although I'm not quite clear why your performance slows down 2-3 times if you define these variables in the Function itself.

Are the parameters from each Background Worker effectively "constant"? If so, you could create a function which returns a function - its similar to the solution you've come up with but more elegant because you don't actually need to make copies of the function. Here's a trivial example:
public void RunBackgroundWorkerOne()
{
var myFunction = CreateFunction("Hello ", "World");
while (true)
myFunction();
}
public Func<string> CreateFunction(string value1, string value2)
{
return (value1, value2) =>
{
return String.Format(value1, value2);
};
}
Then each background worker gets its own copy of the function built around the parameters that it wants to use.
Depending on how complex the parameters are for the function you're creating, you may want to create a "parameter map" type of class to make the code clearer.

Static values vs passing parameters

I have a situation where I have to pass a List<> across 2-3 independent classes up and down the class. Right now I'm mostly passing the list using parameter so all 3 classes gets the list. Should I use a static list instead of passing List all over the classes to simplify the code like Class23.ListObjects.Add() and then release the static values once the operation is done so the next operation starts with an empty List. Right now it feels like the parameters are getting a lot and I'm getting confused if the list has the right values, forgetting to pass the list to the next class, etc. What do you think?

I would suggest you create a new class that represents the combined operation performed by the various classes (a "context" class, if you will). Values needed to perform the operation can be held as instance variables in that context, along with instances of the classes used in performing the work.
That way, you avoid passing stuff around (as code evolves, this can get somewhat ugly) while avoiding a "global" variable. Data is in exactly the scope it needs to be, and is disposed when the overall operation is complete.

In Coding practices, it is bad to have static or Global variables and passing through parameters is considered good.

If you use a static parameter, you run the risk of getting corrupted data if those functions are used in multiple places in your code, especially if threading is involved.
For instance, suppose Class A needs to use your functions that act on your static list. Before those functions are completed, Class B tries to use them as well, causing the list to get data from both calls, since the same static list is used in both cases.

Looking for advice on thread safety using static methods to 'process' a class instance

I have recently inherited a system that uses a very basic approach to processing workitems, basically, it does them one by one. To be honest, up until recently this worked well. However, we are looking to implement a similiar process for another type of workitem and I have been looking into Task Parallel Library and think that will fit the bill. However, I have some concerns about Thread Safety and to be honest, this is an area that I lack knowledge, so I am asking only my 2nd question on here in hope that someone can give me some good points as I have yet to find a definitive yes or no answer for this.
So we have our 'WorkItem' class
public class WorkItem
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string data { get; set;}
}
A List<WorkItem> will be generated and these will then be processed using a Parallel.Foreach loop.
The Parallel.Foreach will call a private method, which in turn will call static methods from another assembly;
//Windows service that will run the Parallel.Foreach
private int MainMethod(WorkItem item)
{
item.Data = Processor.ProcessWorkItemDataProcess1(item.data);
item.Data = Processor.ProcessWorkItemDataProcess2(item.data);
SendToWorkFlow(item);
}
public static class Processor
{
public static string ProcessWorkItemDataProcess1(string data)
{
//Process it here
return string
}
public static string ProcessWorkItemDataProcess2(string data)
{
//Process it here
return string
}
}
And so on. All of these methods have logic in them to process the WorkItem instance at various different stages. Once complete, the MainMethod will send the processed WorkItem off to a Workflow System.
We will be processing these in batches of up to 30 in order not to overload the other systems. My concerns are basically the potential of 30 instances of WorkItem accessing the same static methods could cause some data integrity issues. For example, ProcessWorkItemDataProcess2 is called with WorkItem1.Data and is subsequently called with WorkItem2.Data and somehow WorkItem2.Data is returned when it should be WorkItem1.Data
All of the static methods are self-contained in so far as they have defined logic and will only (in theory) use the WorkItem that it was called with. There are no methods such as DB access, file access, etc.
So, hopefully that explains what I am doing. Should I have any concerns? If so, will creating an instance of the Processor class for each WorkItem solve any potential problems?
Thanks in advance

The scenario you describe doesn't sound like it has any blatant threading issues. Your worries about a static method being called on two different threads and getting the data mixed up is unfounded, unless you write code to mix things up. ;>
Since the methods are static, they don't have any shared object instance to worry about. That's good. You have isolated the work into self-contained work items. That is good.
You will need to check to make sure that none of the static methods access any global state, like static variables or properties, or reading from a file (the same file name for multiple work items). Reading of global state is less of a concern, writing is what will throw a wrench in the works.
You should also review your code to see how data is assigned to your work items and whether any of the code that processes the work items modifies the work item data. If the work items are treated as strictly read only by the methods, that's good. If the methods write changes back to fields or properties of the work items, you will need to double check that the data in the work items is not shared with any other work items. If the code that constructs the work item instances assigns a cached value to a property of multiple work items, and the static methods modify properties of that value, you will have threading conflicts. If the work item construction always constructs new instances of values that are assigned to properties of the work item, this shouldn't be an issue.

In a nutshell, if you have multiple threads accessing shared state, and at least one is writing, then you need to worry about thread safety. If not then you're golden.

Should methods that are required to be executed in a specific order be private? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a Class that retrieves some data and images does some stuff to them and them uploads them to a third party app using web services.
The object needs to perform some specific steps in order.
My question is should I be explicitly exposing each method publicly like so.
myObject obj = new myObject();
obj.RetrieveImages();
obj.RetrieveAssociatedData();
obj.LogIntoThirdPartyWebService();
obj.UploadStuffToWebService();
or should all of these methods be private and encapsulated in a single public method like so.
public class myObject()
{
private void RetrieveImages(){};
private void RetrieveAssociatedData(){};
private void LogIntoThirdPartyWebService(){};
private void UploadStuffToWebService(){};
public void DoStuff()
{
this.RetrieveImages();
this.RetrieveAssociatedData();
this.LogIntoThirdPartyWebService();
this.UploadStuffToWebService();
}
}
which is called like so.
myObject obj = new myObject();
obj.DoStuff();

It depends on who knows that the methods should be called that way.
Consumer knows: For example, if the object is a Stream, usually the consumer of the Stream decides when to Open, Read, and Close the stream. Obviously, these methods need to be public or else the object can't be used properly. (*)
Object knows: If the object knows the order of the methods (e.g. it's a TaxForm and has to make calculations in a specific order), then those methods should be private and exposed through a single higher-level step (e.g. ComputeFederalTax will invoke CalculateDeductions, AdjustGrossIncome, and DeductStateIncome).
If the number of steps is more than a handful, you will want to consider a Strategy instead of having the steps coupled directly into the object. Then you can change things around without mucking too much with the object or its interface.
In your specific case, it does not appear that a consumer of your object cares about anything other than a processing operation taking place. Since it doesn't need to know about the order in which those steps happen, there should be just a single public method called Process (or something to that effect).
(*) However, usually the object knows at least the order in which the methods can be called to prevent an invalid state, even if it doesn't know when to actually do the steps. That is, the object should know enough to prevent itself from getting into a nonsensical state; throwing some sort of exception if you try to call Close before Open is a good example of this.

If method B() truly cannot be called unless A() is called first, then proper design dictates that A should return some object that B requires as a parameter.
Whether this is always practical is another matter, but that's how it should be done.

Yes private, otherwise you are leaving the door open for users to do things wrong, which will only be a cause for pain for everyone.
Do you ever need to call any of these methods on its own? ie does any of them do anything which is useful and might be needed stand alone? if so then you might want to keep those public, but even if you keep them all public, you should have the method which calls them in the correct order (preferably with a useful name) to make things easier for your users.

It all depends on whether the operation is essentially atomic. In this case it looks like a single operation to us outsiders, but is it really? If LogIntoThirdPartyWebService fails, does the UI need to present a dialog box to ask the user if they want to retry? In the case where you have a single operation, retrying the LogIntoThirdPartyWebService operation also requires redoing potentially expensive operations like RetrieveImages, while making them separate enables more granular logic.
What I would do in this case is something like this:
Images images = RetrieveImages();
ImagesAndData data = RetrieveAssociatedData(images);
WebService webservice = LogIntoThirdPartyWebService();
UploadStuffToWebService(data, webservice);
or maybe more ideally something like this:
UploadStuffToWebService(RetrieveImages().RetrieveAssociatedData(),
LogIntoThirdPartyWebService());
Now you have granularity while enforcing the proper order of operations.

It sounds to me like from the consumer of your object's point of view, the object does one thing: it moves images from one place to another. As the consumer of the object, all of the individual steps you need to take to accomplish that are irrelevant to me; after all that's why I have you to do it for me.
So you should have a single DoStuff() method that takes all the necessary params, and make all the implementation details private.

Private -- and take the parameters in the constructor and execute the order there.
Do not assume the caller will, or knows how to, call them in order.
So, rather than the example you have listed, I would do it this way:
MyObject myObject = new MyObject(); // make a constructor to take any parameters that are required to "setup" the object per your requirements.
myObject.UploadToWebService();

It really depends on whether you estimate that anyone would want to invoke only one of these methods and whether they make sense individually or can be implemented independently. If not, then it is better to avoid exposing anything but the high level op.

Expose as little as possible, as much as necessary. If a call to FuncA() is always followed by a call to FuncB(), make one public and have it call the other, or else have public FuncC() call them in sequence.

Yes, it should definitely be private, especially as all the methods seem to be parameterless and you're just concerned with the order.
The only time I would consider calling each method explicitly is if they each took several, non-overlapping parameters, and you wouldn't want to pass such a long string of parameters to one method and would want to modularize. And then you should make sure to document it clearly. But remember that comments are not executable... You'll still have to trust your user a bit more than you really should.
One of the biggest factors of information hiding and OOP... only give the user what is absolutely necessary. Allow as little room for mess-up as possible.

The question of public or private depends entirely on the contract you wish to expose for your object. Do you want users of your object to call the methods individually, or do you want them to call a single "DoStuff" method and be done with it?
It all depends on the intended usage of the class.
In the example you've given, I'd say DoStuff should be public and the rest private.

Which do you think would be easier for the consumers of your class?
Absolutely write one public method that performs the correct steps in the correct order. Otherwise, the caller is not going to do it right; they're going to forget a step or skip something.

Neither. I think you have at least 3 objects otherwise you are breaking the Single-Responsibility Principal. You need an object that "Gets and holds images", one that "manipulates images", and one that "manages external vendor communication".

One reason they would be public is if you intend the user to be able to insert logic between steps. In this case, you should impose that the functions are called in the correct order internally by keeping a really tiny state machine. If the state machine transitions in the wrong order, you have options besides just doing something wrong, such as throwing an exception.
However, an alternative design that allows them all to be remain private if the case of needing to act beween steps does exist. Instead of making the methods public, provide a public callback interface that lets the users attach handlers that you call at each step of the process. In your now private doItAll() method, you can do something as granular as:
if(preRetrieveHandlerExists){
preRetrieveHandler()
}
obj.RetrieveImages();
if(postRetrieveHandlerExists){
postRetrieveHandler()
}
//so on and so forth

My software engineering rule of thumb is to always give the user/consumer/caller as little chance to screw things up as possible. Therefore, keep the methods private to ensure working order.

Fowler uses the term "Feature Envy" to describe a situation where one object calls a handful of methods (especially repeatedly) on another.
I don't know where he got it from. You don't see it much in the literature, and a lot of people over the years have had no idea what I was talking about (I dunno why, I thought the name was perfectly obvious once I heard it. Which is why I repeat it)

Why use a GlobalClass? What are they for?

Why use a GlobalClass? What are they for? I have inherited some code (shown below) and as far as I can see there is no reason why strUserName needs this. What is all for?
public static string strUserName
{
get { return m_globalVar; }
set { m_globalVar = value; }
}
Used later as:
GlobalClass.strUserName
Thanks

You get all the bugs of global state and none of the yucky direct variable access.
If you're going to do it, then your coder implemented it pretty well. He/She probably thought (correctly) that they would be free to swap out an implementation later.
Generally it's viewed as a bad idea since it makes it difficult to test the system as a whole the more globals you have in it.
My 2 cents.

When you want to use a static member of a type, you use it like ClassName.MemberName. If your code snippet is in the same class as the member you're referring (in this example, you're coding in a GlobalClass member, and using strUserName) you can omit the class name. Otherwise, it's required as the compiler wouldn't have any knowledge of what class you're referring to.

This is a common approach when dealing with Context in ASP.Net; however, the implementation would never use a single variable. So if this is a web app I could see this approach being used to indicate who the current user is (Although there are better ways to do this).
I use a simillar approach where I have a MembershipService.CurrentUser property which then pulls a user out from either SessionState or LogicalCallContext (if its a web or client app).
But in these cases these aren't global as they are scoped within narrow confines (Like the http session state).
One case where I have used a global like this would be if I have some data which is static and never changes, and is loaded from the DB (And there's not enough of the data to justify storing it in a cache). You could just store it in a static variable so you don;t have to go back to the DB.
One a side note why was the developer using Hungarian notation to name Properties? even when there was no intellisense and all the goodness our IDEs provide we never used hungarian notation on Properties.

#Jayne, #Josh, it's hard to tell - but the code in the question could also be a static accessor to a static field - somewhat different than #Josh's static helper example (where you use instance or context variables within your helper).
Static Helper methods are a good way to conveniently abstract stateless chunks of functionality. However in the example there is potential for the global variable to be stateful - Demeter's Law guides us that you should only play with state that you own or are given e.g. by parameters.
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?LawOfDemeter
Given the rules there occasional times when it is necessary to break them. You should trade the risk of using global state (primarily the risk of creating state/concurrency bugs) vs. the necessity to use globals.

Well if you want a piece of data to be available to any other class running in the jvm then the Global Class is the way to go.
There are only two slight problems;
One. The implmentation shown is not thread safe. The set... method of any global class should be marked critical or wrapped in a mutex.
Even in the niave example above consider what happens if two threads run simultaniously:
set("Joe") and set("Frederick") could result in "Joederick" or "Fre" or some other permutation.
Two. It doesnt scale well. "Global" refers to a single jvm. A more complex runtime environment like Jboss could be runnning several inter communicating jvms. So the global userid could be 'Joe' or 'Frederick' depending on which jvm your EJB is scheduled.