Develop Reference

c# Cross threading operation exception caused by Close() why? [duplicate]

I have a scenario. (Windows Forms, C#, .NET)
There is a main form which hosts some user control.
The user control does some heavy data operation, such that if I directly call the UserControl_Load method the UI become nonresponsive for the duration for load method execution.
To overcome this I load data on different thread (trying to change existing code as little as I can)
I used a background worker thread which will be loading the data and when done will notify the application that it has done its work.
Now came a real problem. All the UI (main form and its child usercontrols) was created on the primary main thread. In the LOAD method of the usercontrol I'm fetching data based on the values of some control (like textbox) on userControl.
The pseudocode would look like this:
CODE 1
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // This gives exception
{
//Load data corresponding to "MyName".
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage.
}
}
The Exception it gave was
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.
To know more about this I did some googling and a suggestion came up like using the following code
CODE 2
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (InvokeRequired) // Line #1
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod));
return;
}
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // Now it won't give an exception
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage
}
}
But it still seems that I've come back to square one. The Application again
becomes unresponsive. It seems to be due to the execution of line #1 if condition. The loading task is again done by the parent thread and not the third that I spawned.
I don't know whether I perceived this right or wrong.
How do I resolve this and also what is the effect of execution of Line#1 if block?
The situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that the corresponding data can be fetched from the database.

As per Prerak K's update comment (since deleted):
I guess I have not presented the question properly.
Situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
The solution you want then should look like:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
string name = "";
if(textbox1.InvokeRequired)
{
textbox1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { name = textbox1.text; }));
}
if(name == "MyName")
{
// do whatever
}
}
Do your serious processing in the separate thread before you attempt to switch back to the control's thread. For example:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
if(textbox1.text=="MyName") //<<======Now it wont give exception**
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be
//bound to grid at some later stage
if(InvokeRequired)
{
// after we've done all the processing,
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate {
// load the control with the appropriate data
}));
return;
}
}
}

Threading Model in UI
Please read the Threading Model in UI applications (old VB link is here) in order to understand basic concepts. The link navigates to page that describes the WPF threading model. However, Windows Forms utilizes the same idea.
The UI Thread
There is only one thread (UI thread), that is allowed to access System.Windows.Forms.Control and its subclasses members.
Attempt to access member of System.Windows.Forms.Control from different thread than UI thread will cause cross-thread exception.
Since there is only one thread, all UI operations are queued as work items into that thread:
If there is no work for UI thread, then there are idle gaps that can be used by a not-UI related computing.
In order to use mentioned gaps use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods:
BeginInvoke and Invoke methods
The computing overhead of method being invoked should be small as well as computing overhead of event handler methods because the UI thread is used there - the same that is responsible for handling user input. Regardless if this is System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke.
To perform computing expensive operation always use separate thread. Since .NET 2.0 BackgroundWorker is dedicated to performing computing expensive operations in Windows Forms. However in new solutions you should use the async-await pattern as described here.
Use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods only to update a user interface. If you use them for heavy computations, your application will block:
Invoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke causes separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
BeginInvoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke doesn't cause the separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
Code solution
Read answers on question How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?.
For C# 5.0 and .NET 4.5 the recommended solution is here.

You only want to use Invoke or BeginInvoke for the bare minimum piece of work required to change the UI. Your "heavy" method should execute on another thread (e.g. via BackgroundWorker) but then using Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke just to update the UI. That way your UI thread will be free to handle UI events etc.
See my threading article for a WinForms example - although the article was written before BackgroundWorker arrived on the scene, and I'm afraid I haven't updated it in that respect. BackgroundWorker merely simplifies the callback a bit.

I know its too late now. However even today if you are having trouble accessing cross thread controls? This is the shortest answer till date :P
Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
label1.Text = "WooHoo!!!";
}));
This is how i access any form control from a thread.

I have had this problem with the FileSystemWatcher and found that the following code solved the problem:
fsw.SynchronizingObject = this
The control then uses the current form object to deal with the events, and will therefore be on the same thread.

I find the check-and-invoke code which needs to be littered within all methods related to forms to be way too verbose and unneeded. Here's a simple extension method which lets you do away with it completely:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void Invoke<TControlType>(this TControlType control, Action<TControlType> del)
where TControlType : Control
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
control.Invoke(new Action(() => del(control)));
else
del(control);
}
}
And then you can simply do this:
textbox1.Invoke(t => t.Text = "A");
No more messing around - simple.

Controls in .NET are not generally thread safe. That means you shouldn't access a control from a thread other than the one where it lives. To get around this, you need to invoke the control, which is what your 2nd sample is attempting.
However, in your case all you've done is pass the long-running method back to the main thread. Of course, that's not really what you want to do. You need to rethink this a little so that all you're doing on the main thread is setting a quick property here and there.

The cleanest (and proper) solution for UI cross-threading issues is to use SynchronizationContext, see Synchronizing calls to the UI in a multi-threaded application article, it explains it very nicely.

Follow the simplest (in my opinion) way to modify objects from another thread:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
namespace TESTE
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Action<string> DelegateTeste_ModifyText = THREAD_MOD;
Invoke(DelegateTeste_ModifyText, "MODIFY BY THREAD");
}
private void THREAD_MOD(string teste)
{
textBox1.Text = teste;
}
}
}

A new look using Async/Await and callbacks. You only need one line of code if you keep the extension method in your project.
/// <summary>
/// A new way to use Tasks for Asynchronous calls
/// </summary>
public class Example
{
/// <summary>
/// No more delegates, background workers etc. just one line of code as shown below
/// Note it is dependent on the XTask class shown next.
/// </summary>
public async void ExampleMethod()
{
//Still on GUI/Original Thread here
//Do your updates before the next line of code
await XTask.RunAsync(() =>
{
//Running an asynchronous task here
//Cannot update GUI Thread here, but can do lots of work
});
//Can update GUI/Original thread on this line
}
}
/// <summary>
/// A class containing extension methods for the Task class
/// Put this file in folder named Extensions
/// Use prefix of X for the class it Extends
/// </summary>
public static class XTask
{
/// <summary>
/// RunAsync is an extension method that encapsulates the Task.Run using a callback
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Code">The caller is called back on the new Task (on a different thread)</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public async static Task RunAsync(Action Code)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Code();
});
return;
}
}
You can add other things to the Extension method such as wrapping it in a Try/Catch statement, allowing caller to tell it what type to return after completion, an exception callback to caller:
Adding Try Catch, Auto Exception Logging and CallBack
/// <summary>
/// Run Async
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type to return</typeparam>
/// <param name="Code">The callback to the code</param>
/// <param name="Error">The handled and logged exception if one occurs</param>
/// <returns>The type expected as a competed task</returns>
public async static Task<T> RunAsync<T>(Func<string,T> Code, Action<Exception> Error)
{
var done = await Task<T>.Run(() =>
{
T result = default(T);
try
{
result = Code("Code Here");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Unhandled Exception: " + ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
Error(ex);
}
return result;
});
return done;
}
public async void HowToUse()
{
//We now inject the type we want the async routine to return!
var result = await RunAsync<bool>((code) => {
//write code here, all exceptions are logged via the wrapped try catch.
//return what is needed
return someBoolValue;
},
error => {
//exceptions are already handled but are sent back here for further processing
});
if (result)
{
//we can now process the result because the code above awaited for the completion before
//moving to this statement
}
}

This is not the recommended way to solve this error but you can suppress it quickly, it will do the job . I prefer this for prototypes or demos . add
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false
in Form1() constructor .

You need to look at the Backgroundworker example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Especially how it interacts with the UI layer. Based on your posting, this seems to answer your issues.

Here is an alternative way if the object you are working with doesn't have
(InvokeRequired)
This is useful if you are working with the main form in a class other than the main form with an object that is in the main form, but doesn't have InvokeRequired
delegate void updateMainFormObject(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text);
private void updateFormObjectType(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
MainForm.Invoke(new updateMainFormObject(UpdateObject), objectWithoutInvoke, text);
}
public void UpdateObject(ToolStripStatusLabel objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
objectWithoutInvoke.Text = text;
}
It works the same as above, but it is a different approach if you don't have an object with invokerequired, but do have access to the MainForm

I found a need for this while programming an iOS-Phone monotouch app controller in a visual studio winforms prototype project outside of xamarin stuidio. Preferring to program in VS over xamarin studio as much as possible, I wanted the controller to be completely decoupled from the phone framework. This way implementing this for other frameworks like Android and Windows Phone would be much easier for future uses.
I wanted a solution where the GUI could respond to events without the burden of dealing with the cross threading switching code behind every button click. Basically let the class controller handle that to keep the client code simple. You could possibly have many events on the GUI where as if you could handle it in one place in the class would be cleaner. I am not a multi theading expert, let me know if this is flawed.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ExampleController.MyController controller;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
controller = new ExampleController.MyController((ISynchronizeInvoke) this);
controller.Finished += controller_Finished;
}
void controller_Finished(string returnValue)
{
label1.Text = returnValue;
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
controller.SubmitTask("Do It");
}
}
The GUI form is unaware the controller is running asynchronous tasks.
public delegate void FinishedTasksHandler(string returnValue);
public class MyController
{
private ISynchronizeInvoke _syn;
public MyController(ISynchronizeInvoke syn) { _syn = syn; }
public event FinishedTasksHandler Finished;
public void SubmitTask(string someValue)
{
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state => submitTask(someValue));
}
private void submitTask(string someValue)
{
someValue = someValue + " " + DateTime.Now.ToString();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
//Finished(someValue); This causes cross threading error if called like this.
if (Finished != null)
{
if (_syn.InvokeRequired)
{
_syn.Invoke(Finished, new object[] { someValue });
}
else
{
Finished(someValue);
}
}
}
}

Simple and re-usable way to work around this problem.
Extension Method
public static class FormExts
{
public static void LoadOnUI(this Form frm, Action action)
{
if (frm.InvokeRequired) frm.Invoke(action);
else action.Invoke();
}
}
Sample Usage
private void OnAnyEvent(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
this.LoadOnUI(() =>
{
label1.Text = "";
button1.Text = "";
});
}

Along the same lines as previous answers,
but a very short addition that Allows to use all Control properties without having cross thread invokation exception.
Helper Method
/// <summary>
/// Helper method to determin if invoke required, if so will rerun method on correct thread.
/// if not do nothing.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="c">Control that might require invoking</param>
/// <param name="a">action to preform on control thread if so.</param>
/// <returns>true if invoke required</returns>
public bool ControlInvokeRequired(Control c, Action a)
{
if (c.InvokeRequired) c.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
a();
}));
else return false;
return true;
}
Sample Usage
// usage on textbox
public void UpdateTextBox1(String text)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(textBox1, () => UpdateTextBox1(text))) return;
textBox1.Text = ellapsed;
}
//Or any control
public void UpdateControl(Color c, String s)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(myControl, () => UpdateControl(c, s))) return;
myControl.Text = s;
myControl.BackColor = c;
}

this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
//your code here;
}));

For example to get the text from a Control of the UI thread:
Private Delegate Function GetControlTextInvoker(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Private Function GetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Dim text As String
If ctl.InvokeRequired Then
text = CStr(ctl.Invoke(
New GetControlTextInvoker(AddressOf GetControlText), ctl))
Else
text = ctl.Text
End If
Return text
End Function

Same question : how-to-update-the-gui-from-another-thread-in-c
Two Ways:
Return value in e.result and use it to set yout textbox value in backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted event
Declare some variable to hold these kind of values in a separate class (which will work as data holder) . Create static instance of this class adn you can access it over any thread.
Example:
public class data_holder_for_controls
{
//it will hold value for your label
public string status = string.Empty;
}
class Demo
{
public static data_holder_for_controls d1 = new data_holder_for_controls();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(perform_logic);
Thread t1 = new Thread(ts);
t1.Start();
t1.Join();
//your_label.Text=d1.status; --- can access it from any thread
}
public static void perform_logic()
{
//put some code here in this function
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//statements here
}
//set result in status variable
d1.status = "Task done";
}
}

Simply use this:
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
YourControl.Property= value; // runs thread safe
});

Action y; //declared inside class
label1.Invoke(y=()=>label1.Text="text");

There are two options for cross thread operations.
Control.InvokeRequired Property
and second one is to use
SynchronizationContext Post Method
Control.InvokeRequired is only useful when working controls inherited from Control class while SynchronizationContext can be used anywhere. Some useful information is as following links
Cross Thread Update UI | .Net
Cross Thread Update UI using SynchronizationContext | .Net

How to respond events while a threaded operation is running in .NET

I have a class to launch background operations in a WinForms application. I need to write this background worker since my requisites are using .NET 1.1, so I cannot use BackgroundWorker, that is only available from .NET 2.0
This class get a delegate and execute it in a thread. I want the main thread to respond to events.
I also want to indicate that the operation is running setting the application cursor to Cursors.WaitCursor.
What do you think about current implementation? I'm interested in the method WaitTillThreadFinishes(), because I'm not sure about Application.DoEvents(), please read the code and share with me opinions about WaitTillThreadFinishes.
The following code executes the operation:
private object ExecuteOperation (Delegate target, params object[] parameters)
{
mTargetDelegate = target;
mTargetParameters = parameters;
mTargetThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ThreadProc));
mTargetThread.Name = mTargetDelegate.Method.Name;
mOperationFinished = false;
// start threaded operation
mTargetThread.Start();
// perform active waiting
WaitTillThreadFinishes();
return mTargetResult;
}
The following code is executed in a thread, simply call the delegate, and wrap exceptions:
protected virtual void ThreadProc()
{
try
{
mTargetResult = mTargetDelegate.DynamicInvoke(mTargetParameters);
}
catch (ThreadAbortException) { }
catch (Exception ex)
{
//manage exceptions here ...
}
finally
{
mOperationFinished = true;
}
}
And this is the code performs an active waiting. I'm interested on share with you. Any better option? Any pain calling Application.DoEvents() massively?
private void WaitTillThreadFinishes ()
{
// Active wait to respond to events with a WaitCursor
while (!mOperationFinished)
{
// sleep to avoid CPU usage
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100);
Application.DoEvents();
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
}
Cursor.Current = Cursors.Default;
}
Thanks in advance.

Please let me know if i understood your question correctly.
Why dont you use an event to notify the UI that the worker finished his job?
This way, the UI doen't get blocked by the worker, and you avoid busy waiting.
Sample Implementation
public class MyBackgroundWorker
{
// Fields
private Delegate _target;
private object[] _arguments;
// Events
public event EventHandler RunWorkerStarted;
public event EventHandler<RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs> RunWorkerCompleted;
// Event Invocators
public void InvokeRunWorkerStarted()
{
var handler = RunWorkerStarted;
if (handler != null) handler(this, new EventArgs());
}
public void InvokeRunWorkerCompleted(object result)
{
var handler = RunWorkerCompleted;
if (handler != null) handler(this, new RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs(result));
}
public void RunWorkerAsync(Delegate target, params object[] arguments)
{
_target = target;
_arguments = arguments;
new Thread(DoWork).Start(arguments);
}
// Helper method to run the target delegate
private void DoWork(object obj)
{
_target.DynamicInvoke(_arguments);
// Retrieve the target delegate's result and invoke the RunWorkerCompleted event with it (for simplicity, I'm sending null)
InvokeRunWorkerCompleted(null);
}
}
internal class RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs(object result)
{
Result = result;
}
public object Result { get; set; }
}
Usage
In the UI you can use it this way:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var worker = new MyBackgroundWorker();
worker.RunWorkerStarted += worker_RunWorkerStarted;
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += worker_Completed;
worker.RunWorkerAsync(new MethodInvoker(SomeLengthyOperation), null);
}
void worker_RunWorkerStarted(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
void worker_Completed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show("Worker completed");
}
private void SomeLengthyOperation()
{
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Final Notes
Remember to Invoke() in the event handlers to access the UI thread correctly. You can also modify the worker so this is done in a safe way.

There isn't much support in 1.1 for doing this, but I'll tell you what I'd do (sorry, no code at this time).
As for the asynchronous operation, I'd use the APM to kick off and complete the asynchronous method. This is fully supported in 1.1, so no worries there.
The idea is that in the UI, you store some indication that work is being done (a boolean field, for example) and (optionally) a Timer used to "wake up" the UI on a regular basis to check on the current status of the background work and indicate this to the user.
You would set the boolean to indicate you are working in the background, call BeginInvoke() on your delegate (using the overload that takes a callback search for "Executing a Callback Method When an Asynchronous Call Completes
"), and start the Timer. When the user attempts to use the UI, you would optionally check the boolean and cancel the operation, thus preventing the user from doing something harmful while you are waiting. When the timer Ticks, you can check the status of your asynchronous method by, say, a shared field that the method writes updates to and the UI reads. For example, a double which the UI uses to update a progress bar.
Once the callback fires, you clean up your asynchronous mess (i.e., call EndInvoke, and handle any exceptions thrown, etc), turn off the Timer and reset your boolean running indication field.
By using this method, you can keep the UI completely responsive (and partially usable, depending on your overall design), can set up a mechanism to abort the background worker (through the use of another field, the reverse of the boolean mentioned earlier, and inform the user of the status of the operation.

There is occasionally a case for kicking off a thread and waiting for its return, if you are doing other things in the meantime, but in this case, with the code you have shown, it is meaningless.
If you want the threadProc to allow for events to be processed, then call doevents in that, which will free up the CPU briefly, allowing for processing.
Unless you have a particular reason for needing to thread processes, you should not do it. Getting it right - as Ian Boyd has said - is difficult, and the more you need to interact with it the harder it is. If you can run fire-and-forget threads, that is the easiest.

Ideally you start the asynchronous operation and leave your form alone (aside from maybe using the Cursors.AppStarting cursor).
When your threaded operation completes, it then needs to fire some sort of BackgroundOperationComplete event. This is where your would call from your asynchronous delegate code:
form.Invoke(BackgroundOperationComplete);
The form's BackgroundOperationComplete method is where you can handle the fact that the background operation is complete:
void BackgroundOperationComplete()
{
this.Cursor = Cursors.DefaultCursor;
lblAnswer.Text = "The thread is done";
}
If all else fails, keep the operation synchronous, and use an IProgressDialog. (brief conceptual pseudo-code from memory):
void DoStuff()
{
IProgressDialog pd = new ProgressDialog();
pd.SetTitle = "Calculating Widgets";
pd.StartTimer(PDTIMER_RESET, NULL)
pd.StartProgressDialog(this.Handle, NULL, PROGDLG_MODAL | PROGDLG_NOTIME | PROGDLG_NOPROGRESSBAR | PROGDLG_NOCANCEL, NULL);
try
{
pd.SetLine(1, "Please wait while the widgets are frobbed");
DoTheThingThatDoesTheSynchronousStuff();
}
finally
{
pd.StopProgressDialog();
}
pd = null;
}

Why would InvokeRequired=False via a Delegate.BeginInvoke?

For what reasons would this.InvokeRequired equal False within InitUIState(), as this new thread is being created via a delegate?
My problem is that my label is never being set and this.BeginInvoke() is never executing, I imagine it's due to the fact InvokeRequired = False.
private delegate void BackgroundOperationDelegate(ViewMode mode);
private BackgroundOperationDelegate backgroundOperationDelegate;
private void FormControlPanel_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Init();
}
private void Init() {
this.backgroundOperationDelegate = this.InitUIState;
this.backgroundOperationDelegate.BeginInvoke(mode, null, null);
}
private void InitUIState(ViewMode mode)
{
// .. other business logic only here relevant
// to the worker process ..
this.BeginInvoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
this.labelProgramStatus.Text = CONSOLE_IDLE_STATUS;
});
}
I use this pattern time and time again, but for some reason, this time it's not executing :P
(and yes there is only one instance of InitUIState() ever being called, that being from the delegate)
Thanks guys.
Images verifying two distinct threads:
http://imgur.com/mq12Wl&X5R7G
http://imgur.com/mq12W&X5R7Gl
Follow up question: Is this an unpreferred way of creating threads? I've just always found it so simple and lightweight. Perhaps I should be using thread.Start() and I will avoid these issues?

Your 2nd BeginInvoke will throw an Exception.
Try
private void InitUIState(ViewMode mode)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.BeginInvoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
InitUIState(mode);
});
}
else
{
this.labelProgramStatus.Text = CONSOLE_IDLE_STATUS;
}
}

You are mixing BeginInvoke of Form and Delegate, as both of them have same method name.
Form's method, BeginInvoke calls the method you are requested in the same UI thread, but on a later stage, after processing its own pending UI operations. This is the reason, InvokeRequired will always be false within the Form's BeginInvoke's method.
Delegate's method, BeginInvoke calls the method on a new thread asynchronously in thread pool. And InvokeRequired in delegate's BeginInvoke will always be true.

Invoke and BeginInvoke on delegates are not the same as ISynchronizeInvoke.
Also you need to call EndInvoke when dealing with a delegate.

UI Thread .Invoke() causing handle leak?

In what circumstances would updating a UI control from a non-UI thread could cause the processes' handles to continually increase, when using a delegate and .InvokeRequired?
For example:
public delegate void DelegateUIUpdate();
private void UIUpdate()
{
if (someControl.InvokeRequired)
{
someControl.Invoke(new DelegateUIUpdate(UIUpdate));
return;
}
// do something with someControl
}
When this is called in a loop or on timer intervals, the handles for the program consistently increase.
EDIT:
If the above is commented out and amended as such:
public delegate void DelegateUIUpdate();
private void UIUpdate()
{
//if (someControl.InvokeRequired)
//{
// someControl.Invoke(new DelegateUIUpdate(UIUpdate));
// return;
//}
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false;
// do something with someControl
}
...then the handles stop incrementing, however I don't want to allow cross thread calls, of course.
EDIT 2:
Here is a sample that shows the handles increase:
Thread thread;
private delegate void UpdateGUI();
bool UpdateTheGui = false;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(MyThreadLoop));
thread.Start();
}
private void MyThreadLoop()
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
if (UpdateTheGui)
{
UpdateTheGui = false;
UpdateTheGuiNow();
}
}
}
private void UpdateTheGuiNow()
{
if (label1.InvokeRequired)
{
label1.Invoke(new UpdateGUI(UpdateTheGuiNow));
return;
}
label1.Text = DateTime.Now.ToString("MM-dd-yyyy HH:mm:ss");
label2.Text = DateTime.Now.ToString("MM-dd-yyyy HH:mm:ss");
label3.Text = DateTime.Now.ToString("MM-dd-yyyy HH:mm:ss");
}
private void btnInvoke_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
UpdateTheGui = true;
}

I had the same problem with
this.Invoke(new DelegateClockUpdate(ChangeClock), sender, e);
creating one handle each call.
The handle increments because Invoke is Synchronous and effectively the handle has been left hanging.
Either a Wait Handle should be used to process the result or the Asynchronous BeginInvoke method as shown below.
this.BeginInvoke(new DelegateClockUpdate(ChangeClock), sender, e);

The Control.Invoke() method doesn't consume any handles. However, this code is clearly called from a thread. A Thread does consume handles, 5 of them.
The Thread class doesn't have a Dispose() method, although it ought to have one. That was probably by design, it would be very difficult to call reliably, impossibly so for threadpool threads. The 5 handles that a thread requires are released by the finalizer. Your program will require ever increasing amounts of handles if the finalizer never runs.
Not getting the finalizer to run is quite unusual. You would have to have a program that starts a lot of threads but doesn't allocate a lot of memory. This tends to only happen in static tests. You can diagnose this condition with Perfmon.exe, use the .NET memory performance counters and check if gen #0 collections are being done.
If this happens in a production program then you'll have to call GC.Collect() yourself to avoid a runaway handle leak.

I've seen the same thing in my code. I fixed it by replacing Invoke with BeginInvoke. The handle leak went away.
Doron.

I actually see the same problem occuring as JYelton. I have the same call from within a thread to update the UI.
As soon as the line someControl.Invoke(new DelegateUIUpdate(UIUpdate)); is called, the handle increases by one. There is certainly a leak of some kind on the invoke, but I have no idea what is causing it. This has been verified on several systems.

Aync call with explicit handle finalize. Exapmle:
public static class ActionExtensions
{
private static readonly ILog log = LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(ActionExtensions));
/// <summary>
/// Async exec action.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="action">Action.</param>
public static void AsyncInvokeHandlers(
this Action action)
{
if (action == null)
{
return;
}
foreach (Action handler in action.GetInvocationList())
{
// Initiate the asychronous call. Include an AsyncCallback
// delegate representing the callback method, and the data
// needed to call EndInvoke.
handler.BeginInvoke(
ar =>
{
try
{
// Retrieve the delegate.
var handlerToFinalize = (Action)ar.AsyncState;
// Call EndInvoke to free resources.
handlerToFinalize.EndInvoke(ar);
var handle = ar.AsyncWaitHandle;
if (handle.SafeWaitHandle != null && !handle.SafeWaitHandle.IsInvalid && !handle.SafeWaitHandle.IsClosed)
{
((IDisposable)handle).Dispose();
}
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
log.Error("Async Action exec error.", exception);
}
},
handler);
}
}
}
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.iasyncresult.asyncwaithandle.aspx note:
When you use the BeginInvoke method of a delegate to call a method asynchronously and obtain a wait handle from the resulting IAsyncResult, we recommend that you close the wait handle as soon as you are finished using it, by calling the WaitHandle.Close method. If you simply release all references to the wait handle, system resources are freed when garbage collection reclaims the wait handle, but garbage collection works more efficiently when disposable objects are explicitly closed or disposed. For more information, see the AsyncResult.AsyncWaitHandle property.

Here's an extension method which functions similarly to the normal Invoke call, but will clean up the handle after:
namespace ExtensionMethods
{
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static void InvokeAndClose(this Control self, MethodInvoker func)
{
IAsyncResult result = self.BeginInvoke(func);
self.EndInvoke(result);
result.AsyncWaitHandle.Close();
}
}
}
You can then call it very similarly to a normal invoke:
myForm.InvokeAndClose((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
someControl.Text = "New Value";
});
It will block and wait for the delegate to execute, then close the handle before returning.

This is the standard pattern for using Invoke to marshall updates to the UI thread.
Are you sure your problem is not being caused by other code in your application that is not included in your question?

I don't think it is related. Perhaps just waiting for the garbage collector to dispose the newly allocated object(s) inside Invoke().

Avoid calling Invoke when the control is disposed

I have the following code in my worker thread (ImageListView below is derived from Control):
if (mImageListView != null &&
mImageListView.IsHandleCreated &&
!mImageListView.IsDisposed)
{
if (mImageListView.InvokeRequired)
mImageListView.Invoke(
new RefreshDelegateInternal(mImageListView.RefreshInternal));
else
mImageListView.RefreshInternal();
}
However, I get an ObjectDisposedException sometimes with the Invoke method above. It appears that the control can be disposed between the time I check IsDisposed and I call Invoke. How can I avoid that?

What you have here is a race condition. You're better off just catching the ObjectDisposed exception and be done with it. In fact, I think in this case it is the only working solution.
try
{
if (mImageListView.InvokeRequired)
mImageListView.Invoke(new YourDelegate(thisMethod));
else
mImageListView.RefreshInternal();
}
catch (ObjectDisposedException ex)
{
// Do something clever
}

There are implicit race conditions in your code. The control can be disposed between your IsDisposed test and the InvokeRequired test. There's another one between InvokeRequired and Invoke(). You can't fix this without ensuring the control outlives the life of the thread. Given that your thread is generating data for a list view, it ought to stop running before the list view disappears.
Do so by setting e.Cancel in the FormClosing event and signaling the thread to stop with a ManualResetEvent. When the thread completes, call Form.Close() again. Using BackgroundWorker makes it easy to implement the thread completion logic, find sample code in this post.

The reality is that with Invoke and friends, you can't completely protect against invoke on a disposed component, or then getting InvalidOperationException because of the missing handle. I haven't really seen an answer yet, like the one farther below, in any of the threads that addresses the real fundamental problem, which cant be completely solved by preemptive testing or using lock semantics.
Here's the normal 'correct' idiom:
// the event handler. in this case preped for cross thread calls
void OnEventMyUpdate(object sender, MyUpdateEventArgs e)
{
if (!this.IsHandleCreated) return; // ignore events if we arn't ready, and for
// invoke if cant listen to msg queue anyway
if (InvokeRequired)
Invoke(new MyUpdateCallback(this.MyUpdate), e.MyData);
else
this.MyUpdate(e.MyData);
}
// the update function
void MyUpdate(Object myData)
{
...
}
The fundemental problem:
In using the Invoke facility the windows message queue is used, which places a message in the queue to either wait or fire-and-forget the cross thread call exactly like Post or Send message. If there is a message ahead of the Invoke message that will invalidate the component and its window handle, or that got placed just after any checks you try to perform, then you are going to have a bad time.
x thread -> PostMessage(WM_CLOSE); // put 'WM_CLOSE' in queue
y thread -> this.IsHandleCreated // yes we have a valid handle
y thread -> this.Invoke(); // put 'Invoke' in queue
ui thread -> this.Destroy(); // Close processed, handle gone
y thread -> throw Invalid....() // 'Send' comes back, thrown on calling thread y
There is no real way to know that the control is about to remove itself fromthe queue, and nothing really reasonable you can do to "undo" the invoke. No matter how many checks you do or extra locks you make, you cant stop someone else form issuing something like a close, or deactivate. There are tons of senarios where this can happen.
A solution:
The first thing to realize is that the invoke is going to fail, no different than how a (IsHandleCreated) check would have ignored the event. If the goal is to protect the caller on the non-UI thread you will need to handle the exception, and treat it like any other call that didn't succeed (to keep app from crashing or do whatever. And unless going to rewrite/reroll Invoke facility, the catch is your only way to know.
// the event handler. in this case preped for cross thread calls
void OnEventMyWhatever(object sender, MyUpdateEventArgs e)
{
if (!this.IsHandleCreated) return;
if (InvokeRequired)
{
try
{
Invoke(new MyUpdateCallback(this.MyUpdate), e.MyData);
}
catch (InvalidOperationException ex) // pump died before we were processed
{
if (this.IsHandleCreated) throw; // not the droids we are looking for
}
}
else
{
this.MyUpdate(e.MyData);
}
}
// the update function
void MyUpdate(Object myData)
{
...
}
The exception filtering can be tailored to suit whatever the needs are. Its good to be aware that worker threads often dont have all the cushy outer exception handling and logging the UI threads do, in most applicaitons, so you may wish to just gobble up any exception on the worker side. Or log and rethrow all of them. For many, uncaught exceptions on worker thread means the app is going to crash.

Try using
if(!myControl.Disposing)
; // invoke here
I had the exact same problem as you. Ever since I switched to checking .Disposing on the control, the ObjectDisposedException has gone away. Not saying this will fix it 100% of the time, just 99% ;) There is still a chance of a race condition between the check to Disposing and the call to invoke, but in the testing I've done I haven't ran into it (I use the ThreadPool and a worker thread).
Here's what I use before each call to invoke:
private bool IsControlValid(Control myControl)
{
if (myControl == null) return false;
if (myControl.IsDisposed) return false;
if (myControl.Disposing) return false;
if (!myControl.IsHandleCreated) return false;
if (AbortThread) return false; // the signal to the thread to stop processing
return true;
}

may be lock(mImageListView){...} ?

You could use mutexes.
Somewhere at the start of the thread :
Mutex m=new Mutex();
Then :
if (mImageListView != null &&
mImageListView.IsHandleCreated &&
!mImageListView.IsDisposed)
{
m.WaitOne();
if (mImageListView.InvokeRequired)
mImageListView.Invoke(
new RefreshDelegateInternal(mImageListView.RefreshInternal));
else
mImageListView.RefreshInternal();
m.ReleaseMutex();
}
And whereever it is you are disposing of mImageListView :
m.WaitOne();
mImageListView.Dispose();
m.ReleaseMutex();
This should ensure you cant dispose and invoke at the same time.

See also this question:
Avoiding the woes of Invoke/BeginInvoke in cross-thread WinForm event handling?
The utility class that resulted EventHandlerForControl can solve this problem for event method signatures. You could adapt this class or review the logic therein to solve the issue.
The real problem here is that nobugz is correct as he points out that the APIs given for cross-thread calls in winforms are inherently not thread safe. Even within the calls to InvokeRequired and Invoke/BeginInvoke themselves there are several race conditions that can cause unexpected behavior.

If a BackGroundWorker is a possibility, there's a very simple way to circumvent this:
public partial class MyForm : Form
{
private void InvokeViaBgw(Action action)
{
BGW.ReportProgress(0, action);
}
private void BGW_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
if (this.IsDisposed) return; //You are on the UI thread now, so no race condition
var action = (Action)e.UserState;
action();
}
private private void BGW_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
//Sample usage:
this.InvokeViaBgw(() => MyTextBox.Text = "Foo");
}
}

Handle the Form closing event. Check to see if your off UI thread work is still happening, if so start to bring it down, cancel the closing event and then reschedule the close using BeginInvoke on the form control.
private void Form_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
if (service.IsRunning)
{
service.Exit();
e.Cancel = true;
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => { this.Close(); }));
}
}

The solution proposed by Isak Savo
try
{
myForm.Invoke(myForm.myDelegate, new Object[] { message });
}
catch (ObjectDisposedException)
{ //catch exception if the owner window is already closed
}
works in C# 4.0 but for some reasons it fails in C#3.0 (the exception is raised anyway)
So I used another solution based on a flag indicating if the form is closing and consequently preventing the use of invoke if the flag is set
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
bool _closing;
public bool closing { get { return _closing; } }
private void Form1_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
_closing = true;
}
...
// part executing in another thread:
if (_owner.closing == false)
{ // the invoke is skipped if the form is closing
myForm.Invoke(myForm.myDelegate, new Object[] { message });
}
This has the advantage of completely avoiding the use of try/catch.

One way might be to call the method itself ones more instead of invoking the ImageListView-Method:
if (mImageListView != null &&
mImageListView.IsHandleCreated &&
!mImageListView.IsDisposed)
{
if (mImageListView.InvokeRequired)
mImageListView.Invoke(new YourDelegate(thisMethod));
else
mImageListView.RefreshInternal();
}
That way it would check one more time before finally calling RefreshInternal().

The suggestion to stop the thread generating the messages is not acceptable. Delegates can be multicast. Because one listener does not want to listen to the band, you don't shoot the band members.
Since the framework doesn't provide any easy way I know of to clear the message pump of those event messages, and since the form does not expose its private property that lets us know the form is closing:
Set a flag on the IsClosing Event of the window after you unsubscribe or stop listening to the events, and always check this flag before you do a this.Invoke().

i have same error. my error occurred in thread. finally i write this method :
public bool IsDisposed(Control ctrl)
{
if (ctrl.IsDisposed)
return true;
try
{
ctrl.Invoke(new Action(() => { }));
return false;
}
catch (ObjectDisposedException)
{
return true;
}
}

This works for me
if (this.IsHandleCreated){
Task.Delay(500).ContinueWith(_ =>{
this.Invoke(fm2);
});
} else {
this.Refresh();
}