Search Results

Search found 34 results on 2 pages for 'autoresetevent'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • Lightweight alternative to Manual/AutoResetEvent in C#

    - by sweetlilmre
    Hi, I have written what I hope is a lightweight alternative to using the ManualResetEvent and AutoResetEvent classes in C#/.NET. The reasoning behind this was to have Event like functionality without the weight of using a kernel locking object. Although the code seems to work well in both testing and production, getting this kind of thing right for all possibilities can be a fraught undertaking and I would humbly request any constructive comments and or criticism from the StackOverflow crowd on this. Hopefully (after review) this will be useful to others. Usage should be similar to the Manual/AutoResetEvent classes with Notify() used for Set(). Here goes: using System; using System.Threading; public class Signal { private readonly object _lock = new object(); private readonly bool _autoResetSignal; private bool _notified; public Signal() : this(false, false) { } public Signal(bool initialState, bool autoReset) { _autoResetSignal = autoReset; _notified = initialState; } public virtual void Notify() { lock (_lock) { // first time? if (!_notified) { // set the flag _notified = true; // unblock a thread which is waiting on this signal Monitor.Pulse(_lock); } } } public void Wait() { Wait(Timeout.Infinite); } public virtual bool Wait(int milliseconds) { lock (_lock) { bool ret = true; // this check needs to be inside the lock otherwise you can get nailed // with a race condition where the notify thread sets the flag AFTER // the waiting thread has checked it and acquires the lock and does the // pulse before the Monitor.Wait below - when this happens the caller // will wait forever as he "just missed" the only pulse which is ever // going to happen if (!_notified) { ret = Monitor.Wait(_lock, milliseconds); } if (_autoResetSignal) { _notified = false; } return (ret); } } }

    Read the article

  • Queues And Wait Handles in C#

    - by Michael Covelli
    I've had the following code in my application for some years and have never seen an issue from it. while ((PendingOrders.Count > 0) || (WaitHandle.WaitAny(CommandEventArr) != 1)) { lock (PendingOrders) { if (PendingOrders.Count > 0) { fbo = PendingOrders.Dequeue(); } else { fbo = null; } } // Do Some Work if fbo is != null } Where CommandEventArr is made up of the NewOrderEvent (an auto reset event) and the ExitEvent (a manual reset event). But I just realized today that its not thread safe at all. If this thread gets interrupted right after the first (PendingOrder.Count 0) check has returned false. And then the other thread both enqueues an order and sets the NewOrderEvent before I get a chance to wait on it, the body of the while loop will never run. What's the usual pattern used with a Queue and an AutoResetEvent to fix this and do what I'm trying to do with the code above?

    Read the article

  • Why AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent does not support name in the constructor?

    - by Ikaso
    On .NET Framework 2.0 AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent inherit from EventWaitHandle. The EventWaitHandle class has 4 different constructors. 3 of the constructors support giving a name to the event. On the other hand both ManualResetEvent and AutoResetEvent do not support naming and provide a single constructor that receives the initialState. I can simply inherit from EventWaitHandle and write my own implementation of those classes that support all the constructor overloads, but I don't like to re-invent the wheel if I do not have to. My questions are: Is there a special problem in naming events? Do you have any idea why Microsoft did not support it? Do you have a proposal better than inheriting from the EventWaitHandle class and calling the appropriate constructor as in the following example? public class MyAutoResetEvent: EventWaitHandle { public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset) { } public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState, string name) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset, name) { } public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState, string name, out bool createdNew) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset, name, out createdNew) { } public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState, string name, out bool createdNew, EventWaitHandleSecurity eventSecurity) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset, string.Empty, out createdNew, eventSecurity) { } }

    Read the article

  • Several client waiting for the same event

    - by ff8mania
    I'm developing a communication API to be used by a lot of generic clients to communicate with a proprietary system. This proprietary system exposes an API, and I use a particular classes to send and wait messages from this system: obviously the system alert me that a message is ready using an event. The event is named OnMessageArrived. My idea is to expose a simple SendSyncMessage(message) method that helps the user/client to simply send a message and the method returns the response. The client: using ( Communicator c = new Communicator() ) { response = c.SendSync(message); } The communicator class is done in this way: public class Communicator : IDisposable { // Proprietary system object ExternalSystem c; String currentRespone; Guid currentGUID; private readonly ManualResetEvent _manualResetEvent; private ManualResetEvent _manualResetEvent2; String systemName = "system"; String ServerName = "server"; public Communicator() { _manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); //This methods are from the proprietary system API c = SystemInstance.CreateInstance(); c.Connect(systemName , ServerName); } private void ConnectionStarter( object data ) { c.OnMessageArrivedEvent += c_OnMessageArrivedEvent; _manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); c.OnMessageArrivedEvent-= c_OnMessageArrivedEvent; } public String SendSync( String Message ) { Thread _internalThread = new Thread(ConnectionStarter); _internalThread.Start(c); _manualResetEvent2 = new ManualResetEvent(false); String toRet; int messageID; currentGUID = Guid.NewGuid(); c.SendMessage(Message, "Request", currentGUID.ToString()); _manualResetEvent2.WaitOne(); toRet = currentRespone; return toRet; } void c_OnMessageArrivedEvent( int Id, string root, string guid, int TimeOut, out int ReturnCode ) { if ( !guid.Equals(currentGUID.ToString()) ) { _manualResetEvent2.Set(); ReturnCode = 0; return; } object newMessage; c.FetchMessage(Id, 7, out newMessage); currentRespone = newMessage.ToString(); ReturnCode = 0; _manualResetEvent2.Set(); } } I'm really noob in using waithandle, but my idea was to create an instance that sends the message and waits for an event. As soon as the event arrived, checks if the message is the one I expect (checking the unique guid), otherwise continues to wait for the next event. This because could be (and usually is in this way) a lot of clients working concurrently, and I want them to work parallel. As I implemented my stuff, at the moment if I run client 1, client 2 and client 3, client 2 starts sending message as soon as client 1 has finished, and client 3 as client 2 has finished: not what I'm trying to do. Can you help me to fix my code and get my target? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Win32 reset event like synchronization class with boost C++

    - by fgungor
    I need some mechanism reminiscent of Win32 reset events that I can check via functions having the same semantics with WaitForSingleObject() and WaitForMultipleObjects() (Only need the ..SingleObject() version for the moment) . But I am targeting multiple platforms so all I have is boost::threads (AFAIK) . I came up with the following class and wanted to ask about the potential problems and whether it is up to the task or not. Thanks in advance. class reset_event { bool flag, auto_reset; boost::condition_variable cond_var; boost::mutex mx_flag; public: reset_event(bool _auto_reset = false) : flag(false), auto_reset(_auto_reset) { } void wait() { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) return; cond_var.wait(LOCK); if (auto_reset) flag = false; } bool wait(const boost::posix_time::time_duration& dur) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); bool ret = cond_var.timed_wait(LOCK, dur) || flag; if (auto_reset && ret) flag = false; return ret; } void set() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = true; cond_var.notify_all(); } void reset() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = false; } }; Example usage; reset_event terminate_thread; void fn_thread() { while(!terminate_thread.wait(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(10))) { std::cout << "working..." << std::endl; boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(1000)); } std::cout << "thread terminated" << std::endl; } int main() { boost::thread worker(fn_thread); boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::seconds(1)); terminate_thread.set(); worker.join(); return 0; } EDIT I have fixed the code according to Michael Burr's suggestions. My "very simple" tests indicate no problems. class reset_event { bool flag, auto_reset; boost::condition_variable cond_var; boost::mutex mx_flag; public: explicit reset_event(bool _auto_reset = false) : flag(false), auto_reset(_auto_reset) { } void wait() { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return; } do { cond_var.wait(LOCK); } while(!flag); if (auto_reset) flag = false; } bool wait(const boost::posix_time::time_duration& dur) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return true; } bool ret = cond_var.timed_wait(LOCK, dur); if (ret && flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return true; } return false; } void set() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = true; cond_var.notify_all(); } void reset() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = false; } };

    Read the article

  • How do you prevent IDisposable from spreading to all your classes?

    - by GrahamS
    Start with these simple classes... Let's say I have a simple set of classes like this: class Bus { Driver busDriver = new Driver(); } class Driver { Shoe[] shoes = { new Shoe(), new Shoe() }; } class Shoe { Shoelace lace = new Shoelace(); } class Shoelace { bool tied = false; } A Bus has a Driver, the Driver has two Shoes, each Shoe has a Shoelace. All very silly. Add an IDisposable object to Shoelace Later I decide that some operation on the Shoelace could be multi-threaded, so I add an EventWaitHandle for the threads to communicate with. So Shoelace now looks like this: class Shoelace { private AutoResetEvent waitHandle = new AutoResetEvent(false); bool tied = false; // ... other stuff .. } Implement IDisposable on Shoelace Buit now FxCop will complain: "Implement IDisposable on 'Shoelace' because it creates members of the following IDisposable types: 'EventWaitHandle'." Okay, I implement IDisposable on Shoelace and my neat little class becomes this horrible mess: class Shoelace : IDisposable { private AutoResetEvent waitHandle = new AutoResetEvent(false); bool tied = false; private bool disposed = false; public void Dispose() { Dispose(true); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } ~Shoelace() { Dispose(false); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (!this.disposed) { if (disposing) { if (waitHandle != null) { waitHandle.Close(); waitHandle = null; } } // No unmanaged resources to release otherwise they'd go here. } disposed = true; } } Or (as pointed out by commenters) since Shoelace itself has no unmanaged resources, I might use the simpler dispose implementation without needing the Dispose(bool) and Destructor: class Shoelace : IDisposable { private AutoResetEvent waitHandle = new AutoResetEvent(false); bool tied = false; public void Dispose() { if (waitHandle != null) { waitHandle.Close(); waitHandle = null; } GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } } Watch in horror as IDisposable spreads Right that's that fixed. But now FxCop will complain that Shoe creates a Shoelace, so Shoe must be IDisposable too. And Driver creates Shoe so Driver must be IDisposable. and Bus creates Driver so Bus must be IDisposable and so on. Suddenly my small change to Shoelace is causing me a lot of work and my boss is wondering why I need to checkout Bus to make a change to Shoelace. The Question How do you prevent this spread of IDisposable, but still ensure that your unmanaged objects are properly disposed?

    Read the article

  • Need help understanding .net ThreadPool

    - by Meredith
    I am trying to understand what ThreadPool does, I have this .NET example: class Program { static void Main() { int c = 2; // Use AutoResetEvent for thread management AutoResetEvent[] arr = new AutoResetEvent[50]; for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; ++i) { arr[i] = new AutoResetEvent(false); } // Set the number of minimum threads ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(c, 4); // Enqueue 50 work items that run the code in this delegate function for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++) { ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate(object o) { Thread.Sleep(100); arr[(int)o].Set(); // Signals completion }, i); } // Wait for all tasks to complete WaitHandle.WaitAll(arr); } } Does this run 50 "tasks", in groups of 2 (int c) until they all finish? Or I am not understanding what it really does.

    Read the article

  • Invalid Cross-Thread Operations from BackgroundWorker2_RunWorkerCompleted in C#

    - by Jim Fell
    Hello. I'm getting an error that does not make sense. Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'buttonOpenFile' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on. In my application, the UI thread fires off backgroundWorker1, which when almost complete fires off backgroundWorker2 and waits for it to complete. backgroundWorker1 waits for backgroundWorker2 to complete, before it completes. AutoResetEvent variables are used to flag when each of the workers complete. In backgroundWorker2_RunWorkerComplete a function is called that resets the form controls. It is in this ResetFormControls() function where the exception is thrown. I thought it was safe to modify form controls in the RunWorkerCompleted function. Both background workers are instantiated from the UI thread. Here is a greatly summarized version of what I am doing: AutoResetEvent evtProgrammingComplete_c = new AutoResetEvent(false); AutoResetEvent evtResetComplete_c = new AutoResetEvent(false); private void ResetFormControls() { toolStripProgressBar1.Enabled = false; toolStripProgressBar1.RightToLeftLayout = false; toolStripProgressBar1.Value = 0; buttonInit.Enabled = true; buttonOpenFile.Enabled = true; // Error occurs here. buttonProgram.Enabled = true; buttonAbort.Enabled = false; buttonReset.Enabled = true; checkBoxPeripheryModule.Enabled = true; checkBoxVerbose.Enabled = true; comboBoxComPort.Enabled = true; groupBoxToolSettings.Enabled = true; groupBoxNodeSettings.Enabled = true; } private void buttonProgram_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { while (backgroundWorkerProgram.IsBusy) backgroundWorkerProgram.CancelAsync(); backgroundWorkerProgram.RunWorkerAsync(); } private void backgroundWorkerProgram_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { // Does a bunch of stuff... if (tProgramStat_c == eProgramStat_t.DONE) { tProgramStat_c = eProgramStat_t.RESETTING; while (backgroundWorkerReset.IsBusy) backgroundWorkerReset.CancelAsync(); backgroundWorkerReset.RunWorkerAsync(); evtResetComplete_c.WaitOne(LONG_ACK_WAIT * 2); if (tResetStat_c == eResetStat_t.COMPLETED) tProgramStat_c = eProgramStat_t.DONE; } } private void backgroundWorkerProgram_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e) { // Updates form to report complete. No problems here. evtProgrammingComplete_c.Set(); backgroundWorkerProgram.Dispose(); } private void backgroundWorkerReset_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { // Does a bunch of stuff... if (tResetStat_c == eResetStat_t.COMPLETED) if (tProgramStat_c == eProgramStat_t.RESETTING) evtProgrammingComplete_c.WaitOne(); } private void backgroundWorkerReset_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e) { CloseAllComms(); ResetFormControls(); evtResetComplete_c.Set(); backgroundWorkerReset.Dispose(); } Any thoughts or suggestions you may have would be appreciated. I am using Microsoft Visual C# 2008 Express Edition. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Synchronizing thread communication?

    - by Roger Alsing
    Just for the heck of it I'm trying to emulate how JRuby generators work using threads in C#. Also, I'm fully aware that C# haas built in support for yield return, I'm just toying around a bit. I guess it's some sort of poor mans coroutines by keeping multiple callstacks alive using threads. (even though none of the callstacks should execute at the same time) The idea is like this: The consumer thread requests a value The worker thread provides a value and yields back to the consumer thread Repeat untill worker thread is done So, what would be the correct way of doing the following? //example class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { ThreadedEnumerator<string> enumerator = new ThreadedEnumerator<string>(); enumerator.Init(() => { for (int i = 1; i < 100; i++) { enumerator.Yield(i.ToString()); } }); foreach (var item in enumerator) { Console.WriteLine(item); }; Console.ReadLine(); } } //naive threaded enumerator public class ThreadedEnumerator<T> : IEnumerator<T>, IEnumerable<T> { private Thread enumeratorThread; private T current; private bool hasMore = true; private bool isStarted = false; AutoResetEvent enumeratorEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); AutoResetEvent consumerEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); public void Yield(T item) { //wait for consumer to request a value consumerEvent.WaitOne(); //assign the value current = item; //signal that we have yielded the requested enumeratorEvent.Set(); } public void Init(Action userAction) { Action WrappedAction = () => { userAction(); consumerEvent.WaitOne(); enumeratorEvent.Set(); hasMore = false; }; ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(WrappedAction); enumeratorThread = new Thread(ts); enumeratorThread.IsBackground = true; isStarted = false; } public T Current { get { return current; } } public void Dispose() { enumeratorThread.Abort(); } object System.Collections.IEnumerator.Current { get { return Current; } } public bool MoveNext() { if (!isStarted) { isStarted = true; enumeratorThread.Start(); } //signal that we are ready to receive a value consumerEvent.Set(); //wait for the enumerator to yield enumeratorEvent.WaitOne(); return hasMore; } public void Reset() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() { return this; } System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() { return this; } } Ideas?

    Read the article

  • calling concurrently Graphics.Draw and new Bitmap from memory in thread take long time

    - by Abdul jalil
    Example1 public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); pro = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Producer)); con = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Consumer)); } private AutoResetEvent m_DataAvailableEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); Queue<Bitmap> queue = new Queue<Bitmap>(); Thread pro; Thread con ; public void Producer() { MemoryStream[] ms = new MemoryStream[3]; for (int y = 0; y < 3; y++) { StreamReader reader = new StreamReader("image"+(y+1)+".JPG"); BinaryReader breader = new BinaryReader(reader.BaseStream); byte[] buffer=new byte[reader.BaseStream.Length]; breader.Read(buffer,0,buffer.Length); ms[y] = new MemoryStream(buffer); } while (true) { for (int x = 0; x < 3; x++) { Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(ms[x]); queue.Enqueue(bmp); m_DataAvailableEvent.Set(); Thread.Sleep(6); } } } public void Consumer() { Graphics g= pictureBox1.CreateGraphics(); while (true) { m_DataAvailableEvent.WaitOne(); Bitmap bmp = queue.Dequeue(); if (bmp != null) { // Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(ms); g.DrawImage(bmp,new Point(0,0)); bmp.Dispose(); } } } private void pictureBox1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { con.Start(); pro.Start(); } } when Creating bitmap and Drawing to picture box are in seperate thread then Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(ms[x]) take 45.591 millisecond and g.DrawImage(bmp,new Point(0,0)) take 41.430 milisecond when i make bitmap from memoryStream and draw it to picture box in one thread then Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(ms[x]) take 29.619 and g.DrawImage(bmp,new Point(0,0)) take 35.540 the code is for Example 2 is why it take more time to draw and bitmap take time in seperate thread and how to reduce the time when processing in seperate thread. i am using ANTS performance profiler 4.3 public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); pro = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Producer)); con = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Consumer)); } private AutoResetEvent m_DataAvailableEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); Queue<MemoryStream> queue = new Queue<MemoryStream>(); Thread pro; Thread con ; public void Producer() { MemoryStream[] ms = new MemoryStream[3]; for (int y = 0; y < 3; y++) { StreamReader reader = new StreamReader("image"+(y+1)+".JPG"); BinaryReader breader = new BinaryReader(reader.BaseStream); byte[] buffer=new byte[reader.BaseStream.Length]; breader.Read(buffer,0,buffer.Length); ms[y] = new MemoryStream(buffer); } while (true) { for (int x = 0; x < 3; x++) { // Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(ms[x]); queue.Enqueue(ms[x]); m_DataAvailableEvent.Set(); Thread.Sleep(6); } } } public void Consumer() { Graphics g= pictureBox1.CreateGraphics(); while (true) { m_DataAvailableEvent.WaitOne(); //Bitmap bmp = queue.Dequeue(); MemoryStream ms= queue.Dequeue(); if (ms != null) { Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(ms); g.DrawImage(bmp,new Point(0,0)); bmp.Dispose(); } } } private void pictureBox1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { con.Start(); pro.Start(); }

    Read the article

  • Sucky MSTest and the "WaitAll for multiple handles on a STA thread is not supported" Error

    - by Anne Bougie
    If you are doing any multi-threading and are using MSTest, you will probably run across this error. For some reason, MSTest by default runs in STA threading mode. WTF, Microsoft! Why so stuck in the old COM world?  When I run the same test using NUnit, I don't have this problem. Unfortunately, my company has chosen MSTest, so I have a lot of testing problems. NUnit is so much better, IMO. After determining that I wasn't referencing any unmanaged code that would flip the thread into STA, which can also cause this error, the only thing left was the testing suite I was using. I dug around a little and found this obscure setting for the Test Run Config settings file that you can't set using its interface. You have to open it up as a text file and add the following setting:  <ExecutionThread apartmentState="MTA" /> This didn't break any other tests, so I'm not sure why it's not the default, or why there is nothing in the test run configuration app to change this setting. Here is the code I was testing:  public void ProcessTest(ProcessInfo[] infos) {    WaitHandle[] waits = new WaitHandle[infos.Length];    int i = 0;    foreach (ProcessInfo info in infos)    {       AutoResetEvent are = new AutoResetEvent(false);       info.Are = are;       waits[i++] = are;         Processor pr = new Processor();       WaitCallback callback = pr.ProcessTest;       ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(callback, info);    }      WaitHandle.WaitAll(waits); }

    Read the article

  • VB.NET DownloadDataAsync:

    - by Brett
    Hi everybody, I am having the worst trouble getting around a bug, and am hoping that I can get some advice on this site. In short, I am trying to make an asynchronous web service call from my VB.NET application. But my "client_DownloadDataCompleted" callback is NEVER being called when the download is complete. Here is my complete code: Public Sub BeginAsyncDownload(ByVal Url As String) Dim waiter As System.Threading.AutoResetEvent = New System.Threading.AutoResetEvent(False) Dim client As WebClient = New WebClient() 'client_DownloadDataCompleted method gets called when the download completes. AddHandler client.DownloadDataCompleted, AddressOf client_DownloadDataCompleted Dim uri As Uri = New Uri(Url) Downloading = True 'Class variable defined elsewhere client.DownloadDataAsync(uri, waiter) End Sub Private Sub client_DownloadDataCompleted(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As AsyncCompletedEventArgs) MessageBox.Show("Download Completed") Downloading = False Debug.Print("Downloaded") End Sub Again, the client_DownloadDataCompleted method is never being called. I have also tried using the method: Private Sub client_DownloadDataCompleted(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As DownloadDataCompletedEventArgs) With no luck. What I really need is that "Downloading" variable to be switched off when the download is complete. Thanks in advance! Brett

    Read the article

  • C#: Two forms, one is calling the other one

    - by Shaza
    Hey all, I have a problem like this, I have two Winforms, f1 and f2. f1 will start a loop on button click, this loop checks a condition and decide to call the other form which is f2 or not. The problem is, the loop may call f2 many times, so each time the other form f2 will be called the first form f1 should pause its execution. So, I solved it like this, I used backgroundWorker + AutoResetEvent. I placed the backgroundWorker in the first form and inside the DoWork event handler I called f2.Show() then I called WaitOne on the AutoResetEvent let it be A. In the other form "f2", on Exiting button I called Set on the same A. But, unfortunately f2 got freezed when clicking that button in f1, what should I change??

    Read the article

  • C# Asynchronous Network IO and OutOfMemoryException

    - by The.Anti.9
    I'm working on a client/server application in C#, and I need to get Asynchronous sockets working so I can handle multiple connections at once. Technically it works the way it is now, but I get an OutOfMemoryException after about 3 minutes of running. MSDN says to use a WaitHandler to do WaitOne() after the socket.BeginAccept(), but it doesn't actually let me do that. When I try to do that in the code it says WaitHandler is an abstract class or interface, and I can't instantiate it. I thought maybe Id try a static reference, but it doesnt have teh WaitOne() method, just WaitAll() and WaitAny(). The main problem is that in the docs it doesn't give a full code snippet, so you can't actually see what their "wait handler" is coming from. its just a variable called allDone, which also has a Reset() method in the snippet, which a waithandler doesn't have. After digging around in their docs, I found some related thing about an AutoResetEvent in the Threading namespace. It has a WaitOne() and a Reset() method. So I tried that around the while(true) { ... socket.BeginAccept( ... ); ... }. Unfortunately this makes it only take one connection at a time. So I'm not really sure where to go. Here's my code: class ServerRunner { private Byte[] data = new Byte[2048]; private int size = 2048; private Socket server; static AutoResetEvent allDone = new AutoResetEvent(false); public ServerRunner() { server = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp); IPEndPoint iep = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, 33333); server.Bind(iep); Console.WriteLine("Server initialized.."); } public void Run() { server.Listen(100); Console.WriteLine("Listening..."); while (true) { //allDone.Reset(); server.BeginAccept(new AsyncCallback(AcceptCon), server); //allDone.WaitOne(); } } void AcceptCon(IAsyncResult iar) { Socket oldserver = (Socket)iar.AsyncState; Socket client = oldserver.EndAccept(iar); Console.WriteLine(client.RemoteEndPoint.ToString() + " connected"); byte[] message = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes("Welcome"); client.BeginSend(message, 0, message.Length, SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(SendData), client); } void SendData(IAsyncResult iar) { Socket client = (Socket)iar.AsyncState; int sent = client.EndSend(iar); client.BeginReceive(data, 0, size, SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(ReceiveData), client); } void ReceiveData(IAsyncResult iar) { Socket client = (Socket)iar.AsyncState; int recv = client.EndReceive(iar); if (recv == 0) { client.Close(); server.BeginAccept(new AsyncCallback(AcceptCon), server); return; } string receivedData = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(data, 0, recv); //process received data here byte[] message2 = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes("reply"); client.BeginSend(message2, 0, message2.Length, SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(SendData), client); } }

    Read the article

  • How to disable auto-generated WCF configuration

    - by user351025
    Every time my program runs vs adds the default configuration to my app.config file. At that run it works fine, but at the next run it actually tries to read the config. The problem is that the default configuration has errors, it adds the attribute "Address", but attritbutes are not allowed to have capitals so it throws an exception. This means I have to remove the bad section every run! I've tried to configure the .config but it gives errors. Here is the code that I use to host the server: private static System.Threading.AutoResetEvent stopFlag = new System.Threading.AutoResetEvent(false); ServiceHost host = new ServiceHost(typeof(Service), new Uri("http://localhost:8000")); host.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(IService), new BasicHttpBinding(), "ChessServer"); host.Open(); stopFlag.WaitOne(); host.Close(); Here is the client code that calls the server: ChannelFactory<IChessServer> scf; scf = new ChannelFactory<IService> (new BasicHttpBinding(), "http://localhost:8000"); IService service = scf.CreateChannel(); Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Creating a blocking Queue<T> in .NET?

    - by spoon16
    I have a scenario where I have multiple threads adding to a queue and multiple threads reading from the same queue. If the queue reaches a specific size all threads that are filling the queue will be blocked on add until an item is removed from the queue. The solution below is what I am using right now and my question is: How can this be improved? Is there an object that already enables this behavior in the BCL that I should be using? internal class BlockingCollection<T> : CollectionBase, IEnumerable { //todo: might be worth changing this into a proper QUEUE private AutoResetEvent _FullEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); internal T this[int i] { get { return (T) List[i]; } } private int _MaxSize; internal int MaxSize { get { return _MaxSize; } set { _MaxSize = value; checkSize(); } } internal BlockingCollection(int maxSize) { MaxSize = maxSize; } internal void Add(T item) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection add waiting: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.WaitOne(); List.Add(item); Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item added: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); checkSize(); } internal void Remove(T item) { lock (List) { List.Remove(item); } Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item removed: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); } protected override void OnRemoveComplete(int index, object value) { checkSize(); base.OnRemoveComplete(index, value); } internal new IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { return List.GetEnumerator(); } private void checkSize() { if (Count < MaxSize) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent set: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Set(); } else { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent reset: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Reset(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Change timer intervall in windows service

    - by AyKarsi
    I have timer job inside a windows service, for which the intervall should be incremented when errors occur. My problem is that I can't get the timer.Change Method to actually change the intervall. The "DoSomething" is always called after the inital interval.. This is probably something simple .. Code follows: protected override void OnStart(string[] args) { //job = new CronJob(); timerDelegate = new TimerCallback(DoSomething); seconds = secondsDefault; stateTimer = new Timer(timerDelegate, null, 0, seconds * 1000); } public void DoSomething(object stateObject) { AutoResetEvent autoEvent = (AutoResetEvent)stateObject; if(!Busker.BitCoinData.Helpers.BitCoinHelper.BitCoinsServiceIsUp()) { secondsDefault += secondsIncrementError; if (seconds >= secondesMaximum) seconds = secondesMaximum; Loggy.AddError("BitcoinService not available. Incrementing timer to " + secondsDefault + " s",null); stateTimer.Change(seconds * 100, seconds * 100); return; } else if (seconds > secondsDefault) { // reset the timer interval if the bitcoin service is back up... seconds = secondsDefault; Loggy.Add ("BitcoinService timer increment has been reset to " + secondsDefault + " s"); } // do the the actual processing here }

    Read the article

  • .NET 4: &ldquo;Slim&rdquo;-style performance boost!

    - by Vitus
    RTM version of .NET 4 and Visual Studio 2010 is available, and now we can do some test with it. Parallel Extensions is one of the most valuable part of .NET 4.0. It’s a set of good tools for easily consuming multicore hardware power. And it also contains some “upgraded” sync primitives – Slim-version. For example, it include updated variant of widely known ManualResetEvent. For people, who don’t know about it: you can sync concurrency execution of some pieces of code with this sync primitive. Instance of ManualResetEvent can be in 2 states: signaled and non-signaled. Transition between it possible by Set() and Reset() methods call. Some shortly explanation: Thread 1 Thread 2 Time mre.Reset(); mre.WaitOne(); //code execution 0 //wating //code execution 1 //wating //code execution 2 //wating //code execution 3 //wating mre.Set(); 4 //code execution //… 5 Upgraded version of this primitive is ManualResetEventSlim. The idea in decreasing performance cost in case, when only 1 thread use it. Main concept in the “hybrid sync schema”, which can be done as following:   internal sealed class SimpleHybridLock : IDisposable { private Int32 m_waiters = 0; private AutoResetEvent m_waiterLock = new AutoResetEvent(false);   public void Enter() { if (Interlocked.Increment(ref m_waiters) == 1) return; m_waiterLock.WaitOne(); }   public void Leave() { if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_waiters) == 0) return; m_waiterLock.Set(); }   public void Dispose() { m_waiterLock.Dispose(); } } It’s a sample from Jeffry Richter’s book “CLR via C#”, 3rd edition. Primitive SimpleHybridLock have two public methods: Enter() and Leave(). You can put your concurrency-critical code between calls of these methods, and it would executed in only one thread at the moment. Code is really simple: first thread, called Enter(), increase counter. Second thread also increase counter, and suspend while m_waiterLock is not signaled. So, if we don’t have concurrent access to our lock, “heavy” methods WaitOne() and Set() will not called. It’s can give some performance bonus. ManualResetEvent use the similar idea. Of course, it have more “smart” technics inside, like a checking of recursive calls, and so on. I want to know a real difference between classic ManualResetEvent realization, and new –Slim. I wrote a simple “benchmark”: class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { ManualResetEventSlim mres = new ManualResetEventSlim(false); ManualResetEventSlim mres2 = new ManualResetEventSlim(false);   ManualResetEvent mre = new ManualResetEvent(false);   long total = 0; int COUNT = 50;   for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) { mres2.Reset(); Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();   ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((obj) => { //Method(mres, true); Method2(mre, true); mres2.Set(); }); //Method(mres, false); Method2(mre, false);   mres2.Wait(); sw.Stop();   Console.WriteLine("Pass {0}: {1} ms", i, sw.ElapsedMilliseconds); total += sw.ElapsedMilliseconds; }   Console.WriteLine(); Console.WriteLine("==============================="); Console.WriteLine("Done in average=" + total / (double)COUNT); Console.ReadLine(); }   private static void Method(ManualResetEventSlim mre, bool value) { for (int i = 0; i < 9000000; i++) { if (value) { mre.Set(); } else { mre.Reset(); } } }   private static void Method2(ManualResetEvent mre, bool value) { for (int i = 0; i < 9000000; i++) { if (value) { mre.Set(); } else { mre.Reset(); } } } } I use 2 concurrent thread (the main thread and one from thread pool) for setting and resetting ManualResetEvents, and try to run test COUNT times, and calculate average execution time. Here is the results (I get it on my dual core notebook with T7250 CPU and Windows 7 x64): ManualResetEvent ManualResetEventSlim Difference is obvious and serious – in 10 times! So, I think preferable way is using ManualResetEventSlim, because not always on calling Set() and Reset() will be called “heavy” methods for working with Windows kernel-mode objects. It’s a small and nice improvement! ;)

    Read the article

  • Inside BackgroundWorker

    - by João Angelo
    The BackgroundWorker is a reusable component that can be used in different contexts, but sometimes with unexpected results. If you are like me, you have mostly used background workers while doing Windows Forms development due to the flexibility they offer for running a background task. They support cancellation and give events that signal progress updates and task completion. When used in Windows Forms, these events (ProgressChanged and RunWorkerCompleted) get executed back on the UI thread where you can freely access your form controls. However, the logic of the progress changed and worker completed events being invoked in the thread that started the background worker is not something you get directly from the BackgroundWorker, but instead from the fact that you are running in the context of Windows Forms. Take the following example that illustrates the use of a worker in three different scenarios: – Console Application or Windows Service; – Windows Forms; – WPF. using System; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Threading; using System.Windows.Forms; using System.Windows.Threading; class Program { static AutoResetEvent Synch = new AutoResetEvent(false); static void Main() { var bw1 = new BackgroundWorker(); var bw2 = new BackgroundWorker(); var bw3 = new BackgroundWorker(); Console.WriteLine("DEFAULT"); var unspecializedThread = new Thread(() => { OutputCaller(1); SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext( new SynchronizationContext()); bw1.DoWork += (sender, e) => OutputWork(1); bw1.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) => OutputCompleted(1); // Uses default SynchronizationContext bw1.RunWorkerAsync(); }); unspecializedThread.IsBackground = true; unspecializedThread.Start(); Synch.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine(); Console.WriteLine("WINDOWS FORMS"); var windowsFormsThread = new Thread(() => { OutputCaller(2); SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext( new WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext()); bw2.DoWork += (sender, e) => OutputWork(2); bw2.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) => OutputCompleted(2); // Uses WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext bw2.RunWorkerAsync(); Application.Run(); }); windowsFormsThread.IsBackground = true; windowsFormsThread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA); windowsFormsThread.Start(); Synch.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine(); Console.WriteLine("WPF"); var wpfThread = new Thread(() => { OutputCaller(3); SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext( new DispatcherSynchronizationContext()); bw3.DoWork += (sender, e) => OutputWork(3); bw3.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) => OutputCompleted(3); // Uses DispatcherSynchronizationContext bw3.RunWorkerAsync(); Dispatcher.Run(); }); wpfThread.IsBackground = true; wpfThread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA); wpfThread.Start(); Synch.WaitOne(); } static void OutputCaller(int workerId) { Console.WriteLine( "bw{0}.{1} | Thread: {2} | IsThreadPool: {3}", workerId, "RunWorkerAsync".PadRight(18), Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, Thread.CurrentThread.IsThreadPoolThread); } static void OutputWork(int workerId) { Console.WriteLine( "bw{0}.{1} | Thread: {2} | IsThreadPool: {3}", workerId, "DoWork".PadRight(18), Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, Thread.CurrentThread.IsThreadPoolThread); } static void OutputCompleted(int workerId) { Console.WriteLine( "bw{0}.{1} | Thread: {2} | IsThreadPool: {3}", workerId, "RunWorkerCompleted".PadRight(18), Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, Thread.CurrentThread.IsThreadPoolThread); Synch.Set(); } } Output: //DEFAULT //bw1.RunWorkerAsync | Thread: 3 | IsThreadPool: False //bw1.DoWork | Thread: 4 | IsThreadPool: True //bw1.RunWorkerCompleted | Thread: 5 | IsThreadPool: True //WINDOWS FORMS //bw2.RunWorkerAsync | Thread: 6 | IsThreadPool: False //bw2.DoWork | Thread: 5 | IsThreadPool: True //bw2.RunWorkerCompleted | Thread: 6 | IsThreadPool: False //WPF //bw3.RunWorkerAsync | Thread: 7 | IsThreadPool: False //bw3.DoWork | Thread: 5 | IsThreadPool: True //bw3.RunWorkerCompleted | Thread: 7 | IsThreadPool: False As you can see the output between the first and remaining scenarios is somewhat different. While in Windows Forms and WPF the worker completed event runs on the thread that called RunWorkerAsync, in the first scenario the same event runs on any thread available in the thread pool. Another scenario where you can get the first behavior, even when on Windows Forms or WPF, is if you chain the creation of background workers, that is, you create a second worker in the DoWork event handler of an already running worker. Since the DoWork executes in a thread from the pool the second worker will use the default synchronization context and the completed event will not run in the UI thread.

    Read the article

  • Using dispatchertimer in combination with an asynchroneous call

    - by Civelle
    Hi. We have an issue in our Silverlight application which uses WCF and Entity Framework, where we need to trap the event whenever a user shuts down the application by closing the web page or the browser instead of closing the silverlight application. This is in order to verify if any changes have been made, in which case we would ask the user if he wants to save before leaving. We were able to accomplish the part which consists in trapping the closing of the web page: we wrote some code in the application object that have the web page call a method in the silverlight application object. The problem starts when in this method, we do an asynchroneous call to the Web Service to verify if changes have occured (IsDirty). We are using a DispatcherTimer to check for the return of the asynchroneous call. The problem is that the asynchroneous call never completes (in debug mode, it never ends up stepping into the _BfrServ_Customer_IsDirtyCompleted method), while it used to work fine before we added this new functionality. You will find belowthe code we are using. I am new to writing timers in combination with asynchroneous call so I may be doing something wrong but I cannot figure out what. I tried other things also but we without any success.. ====================== CODE ============================================== 'Code in the application object Public Sub New() InitializeComponent() RegisterOnBeforeUnload() _DispatcherTimer.Interval = New TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, 500) End Sub Public Sub RegisterOnBeforeUnload() 'Register Silverlight object for availability in Javascript. Const scriptableObjectName As String = "Bridge" HtmlPage.RegisterScriptableObject(scriptableObjectName, Me) 'Start listening to Javascript event. Dim pluginName As String = HtmlPage.Plugin.Id HtmlPage.Window.Eval(String.Format("window.onbeforeunload = function () {{ var slApp = document.getElementById('{0}'); var result = slApp.Content.{1}.OnBeforeUnload(); if(result.length 0)return result;}}", pluginName, scriptableObjectName)) End Sub Public Function OnBeforeUnload() As String Dim userControls As List(Of UserControl) = New List(Of UserControl) Dim test As Boolean = True If CType(Me.RootVisual, StartPage).LayoutRoot.Children.Item(0).GetType().Name = "MainPage" Then If Not CType(CType(Me.RootVisual, StartPage).LayoutRoot.Children.Item(0), MainPage).FindName("Tab") Is Nothing Then If CType(CType(Me.RootVisual, StartPage).LayoutRoot.Children.Item(0), MainPage).FindName("Tab").Items.Count = 1 Then For Each item As TabItem In CType(CType(Me.RootVisual, StartPage).LayoutRoot.Children.Item(0), MainPage).Tab.Items If item.Content.GetType().Name = "CustomerDetailUI" _Item = item WaitHandle = New AutoResetEvent(False) DoAsyncCall() Exit End If Next End If End If End If If _IsDirty = True Then Return "Do you want to save before leaving." Else Return String.Empty End If End Function Private Sub DoAsyncCall() _Item.Content.CheckForIsDirty(WaitHandle) 'This code resides in the CustomerDetailUI UserControl - see below for the code End Sub Private Sub _DispatcherTimer_Tick(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles _DispatcherTimer.Tick If Not _Item.Content._IsDirtyCompleted = True Then Exit Sub End If _DispatcherTimerRunning = False _DispatcherTimer.Stop() ProcessAsyncCallResult() End Sub Private Sub ProcessAsyncCallResult() _IsDirty = _Item.Content._IsDirty End Sub 'CustomerDetailUI code Public Sub CheckForIsDirty(ByVal myAutoResetEvent As AutoResetEvent) _AutoResetEvent = myAutoResetEvent _BfrServ.Customer_IsDirtyAsync(_Customer) 'This method initiates asynchroneous call to the web service - all the details are not shown here _AutoResetEvent.WaitOne() End Sub Private Sub _BfrServ_Customer_IsDirtyCompleted(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As BFRService.Customer_IsDirtyCompletedEventArgs) Handles _BfrServ.Customer_IsDirtyCompleted If _IsDirtyFromRefesh Then _IsDirtyFromRefesh = False If e.Result = True Then Me.Confirm("This customer has been modified. Are you sure you want to refresh your data ? " & vbNewLine & " Your changes will be lost.", "Yes", "No", Message.CheckIsDirtyRefresh) End If Busy.IsBusy = False Else If e.Result = True Then _IsDirty = True Me.Confirm("This customer has been modified. Would you like to save?", "Yes", "No", Message.CheckIsDirty) Else Me.Tab.Items.Remove(Me.Tab.SelectedItem) Busy.IsBusy = False End If End If _IsDirtyCompleted = True _AutoResetEvent.Set() End Sub

    Read the article

  • WCF and Firewalls

    - by Amitd
    Hi guys, As a part of learning WCF, I was trying to use a simple WCF client-server code . http://weblogs.asp.net/ralfw/archive/2007/04/14/a-truely-simple-example-to-get-started-with-wcf.aspx but I'm facing strange issues.I was trying out the following. Client(My) IP address is : 192.168.2.5 (internal behind firewall) Server IP address is : 192.168.50.30 port : 9050 (internal behind firewall) Servers LIVE/External IP (on internet ) : 121.225.xx.xx (accessible from internet) When I specify the above I.P address of server(192.168.50.30), the client connects successfully and can call servers methods. Now suppose if I want to give my friend (outside network/on internet) the client with server's live I.P, i get an ENDPOINTNOTFOUND exceptions. Surprisingly if I run the above client specifying LIVE IP(121.225.xx.xx) of server i also get the same exception. I tried to debug the problem but haven't found anything. Is it a problem with the company firewall not forwarding my request? or is it a problem with the server or client . Is something needed to be added to the server/client to overcome the same problem? Or are there any settings on the firewall that need to be changed like port forwarding? (our network admin has configured the port to be accessible from the internet.) is it a authentication issue? Code is available at . http://www.ralfw.de/weblog/wcfsimple.txt http://weblogs.asp.net/ralfw/archive/2007/04/14/a-truely-simple-example-to-get-started-with-wcf.aspx i have just separated the client and server part in separate assemblies.rest is same. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Text; using System.ServiceModel; namespace WCFSimple.Contract { [ServiceContract] public interface IService { [OperationContract] string Ping(string name); } } namespace WCFSimple.Server { [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerCall)] class ServiceImplementation : WCFSimple.Contract.IService { #region IService Members public string Ping(string name) { Console.WriteLine("SERVER - Processing Ping('{0}')", name); return "Hello, " + name; } #endregion } public class Program { private static System.Threading.AutoResetEvent stopFlag = new System.Threading.AutoResetEvent(false); public static void Main() { ServiceHost svh = new ServiceHost(typeof(ServiceImplementation)); svh.AddServiceEndpoint( typeof(WCFSimple.Contract.IService), new NetTcpBinding(), "net.tcp://localhost:8000"); svh.Open(); Console.WriteLine("SERVER - Running..."); stopFlag.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("SERVER - Shutting down..."); svh.Close(); Console.WriteLine("SERVER - Shut down!"); } public static void Stop() { stopFlag.Set(); } } } namespace WCFSimple { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine("WCF Simple Demo"); // start server System.Threading.Thread thServer = new System.Threading.Thread(WCFSimple.Server.Program.Main); thServer.IsBackground = true; thServer.Start(); System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000); // wait for server to start up // run client ChannelFactory<WCFSimple.Contract.IService> scf; scf = new ChannelFactory<WCFSimple.Contract.IService>( new NetTcpBinding(), "net.tcp://localhost:8000"); WCFSimple.Contract.IService s; s = scf.CreateChannel(); while (true) { Console.Write("CLIENT - Name: "); string name = Console.ReadLine(); if (name == "") break; string response = s.Ping(name); Console.WriteLine("CLIENT - Response from service: " + response); } (s as ICommunicationObject).Close(); // shutdown server WCFSimple.Server.Program.Stop(); thServer.Join(); } } } Any help?

    Read the article

  • Using SqlBulkCopy in a multithread scenario with ThreadPool issue

    - by Ruben F.
    Hi. I'm facing a dilemma (!). In a first scenario, i implemented a solution that replicates data from one data base to another using SQLBulkCopy synchronously and i had no problem at all. Now, using ThreadPool, i implemented the same in a assynchronously scenario, a thread per table, and all works fine, but past some time (usualy 1hour because the operations of copy takes about the same time), the operations sended to the ThreadPool stop being executed. There are one diferent SQLBulkCopy using one diferent SQLConnection per thread. I already see the number of free threads, and they are all free at the begining of the invocation...I have one AutoResetEvent to wait that the threads finish their job before launching again, and a Semaphore FIFO that hold the counter of active threads. There are some issue that I have forgotten or that I should avaliate when using SqlBulkCopy? I apreciate some help, because my ideas are over;) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Code review recommendations and Code Smells

    - by Michael Freidgeim
    Some time ago Twitter told that I am similar to Boris Lipschitz . Indeed he is also .Net programmer from Russia living in Australia. I‘ve read his list of Code Review points and found them quite comprehensive. A few points  were not clear for me, and it forced me for a further reading.In particular the statement “Exception should not be used to return a status or an error code.” wasn’t fully clear for me, because sometimes we store an exception as an object with all error details and I believe it’s a valid approach. However I agree that throwing exceptions should be avoided, if you expect to return error as a part of a normal flow. Related link: http://codeutopia.net/blog/2010/03/11/should-a-failed-function-return-a-value-or-throw-an-exception/ Another point slightly puzzled me“If Thread.Sleep() is used, can it be replaced with something else, ei Timer, AutoResetEvent, etc” . I believe, that there are very rare cases, when anyone using Thread.Sleep in any production code. Usually it is used in mocks and prototypes.I had to look further to clarify “Dependency injection is used instead of Service Location pattern”.Even most of articles has some preferences to Dependency injection, there are also advantages to use Service Location. E.g see http://geekswithblogs.net/KyleBurns/archive/2012/04/27/dependency-injection-vs.-service-locator.aspx. http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000587.html  refers to Concluding Thoughts of Martin Fowler The choice between Service Locator and Dependency Injection is less important than the principle of separating service configuration from the use of services within an applicationThe post had a link to excellent article Code Smells of Jeff Atwood, but the statement, that “code should not pass a review if it violates any of the  code smells” sound too strict for my environment. In particular, I disagree with “Dead Code” recommendation “Ruthlessly delete code that isn't being used. That's why we have source control systems!”. If there is a chance that not used code will be required in a future, it is convenient to keep it as commented or #if/#endif blocks with appropriate explanation, why it could be required in the future. TFS is a good source control system, but context search in source code of current solution is much easier than finding something in the previous versions of the code.I also found a link to a good book “Clean Code.A.Handbook.of.Agile.Software”

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 + WCF RIA - Data Service Design Best Practices

    - by Chadd Nervig
    Hey all. I realize this is a rather long question, but I'd really appreciate any help from anyone experienced with RIA services. Thanks! I'm working on a Silverlight 4 app that views data from the server. I'm relatively inexperienced with RIA Services, so have been working through the tasks of getting the data I need down to the client, but every new piece I add to the puzzle seems to be more and more problematic. I feel like I'm missing some basic concepts here, and it seems like I'm just 'hacking' pieces on, in time-consuming ways, each one breaking the previous ones as I try to add them. I'd love to get the feedback of developers experienced with RIA services, to figure out the intended way to do what I'm trying to do. Let me lay out what I'm trying to do: First, the data. The source of this data is a variety of sources, primarily created by a shared library which reads data from our database, and exposes it as POCOs (Plain Old CLR Objects). I'm creating my own POCOs to represent the different types of data I need to pass between server and client. DataA - This app is for viewing a certain type of data, lets call DataA, in near-realtime. Every 3 minutes, the client should pull data down from the server, of all the new DataA since the last time it requested data. DataB - Users can view the DataA objects in the app, and may select one of them from the list, which displays additional details about that DataA. I'm bringing these extra details down from the server as DataB. DataC - One of the things that DataB contains is a history of a couple important values over time. I'm calling each data point of this history a DataC object, and each DataB object contains many DataCs. The Data Model - On the server side, I have a single DomainService: [EnableClientAccess] public class MyDomainService : DomainService { public IEnumerable<DataA> GetDataA(DateTime? startDate) { /*Pieces together the DataAs that have been created since startDate, and returns them*/ } public DataB GetDataB(int dataAID) { /*Looks up the extended info for that dataAID, constructs a new DataB with that DataA's data, plus the extended info (with multiple DataCs in a List<DataC> property on the DataB), and returns it*/ } //Not exactly sure why these are here, but I think it //wouldn't compile without them for some reason? The data //is entirely read-only, so I don't need to update. public void UpdateDataA(DataA dataA) { throw new NotSupportedException(); } public void UpdateDataB(DataB dataB) { throw new NotSupportedException(); } } The classes for DataA/B/C look like this: [KnownType(typeof(DataB))] public partial class DataA { [Key] [DataMember] public int DataAID { get; set; } [DataMember] public decimal MyDecimalA { get; set; } [DataMember] public string MyStringA { get; set; } [DataMember] public DataTime MyDateTimeA { get; set; } } public partial class DataB : DataA { [Key] [DataMember] public int DataAID { get; set; } [DataMember] public decimal MyDecimalB { get; set; } [DataMember] public string MyStringB { get; set; } [Include] //I don't know which of these, if any, I need? [Composition] [Association("DataAToC","DataAID","DataAID")] public List<DataC> DataCs { get; set; } } public partial class DataC { [Key] [DataMember] public int DataAID { get; set; } [Key] [DataMember] public DateTime Timestamp { get; set; } [DataMember] public decimal MyHistoricDecimal { get; set; } } I guess a big question I have here is... Should I be using Entities instead of POCOs? Are my classes constructed correctly to be able to pass the data down correctly? Should I be using Invoke methods instead of Query (Get) methods on the DomainService? On the client side, I'm having a number of issues. Surprisingly, one of my biggest ones has been threading. I didn't expect there to be so many threading issues with MyDomainContext. What I've learned is that you only seem to be able to create MyDomainContextObjects on the UI thread, all of the queries you can make are done asynchronously only, and that if you try to fake doing it synchronously by blocking the calling thread until the LoadOperation finishes, you have to do so on a background thread, since it uses the UI thread to make the query. So here's what I've got so far. The app should display a stream of the DataA objects, spreading each 3min chunk of them over the next 3min (so they end up displayed 3min after the occurred, looking like a continuous stream, but only have to be downloaded in 3min bursts). To do this, the main form initializes, creates a private MyDomainContext, and starts up a background worker, which continuously loops in a while(true). On each loop, it checks if it has any DataAs left over to display. If so, it displays that Data, and Thread.Sleep()s until the next DataA is scheduled to be displayed. If it's out of data, it queries for more, using the following methods: public DataA[] GetDataAs(DateTime? startDate) { _loadOperationGetDataACompletion = new AutoResetEvent(false); LoadOperation<DataA> loadOperationGetDataA = null; loadOperationGetDataA = _context.Load(_context.GetDataAQuery(startDate), System.ServiceModel.DomainServices.Client.LoadBehavior.RefreshCurrent, false); loadOperationGetDataA.Completed += new EventHandler(loadOperationGetDataA_Completed); _loadOperationGetDataACompletion.WaitOne(); List<DataA> dataAs = new List<DataA>(); foreach (var dataA in loadOperationGetDataA.Entities) dataAs.Add(dataA); return dataAs.ToArray(); } private static AutoResetEvent _loadOperationGetDataACompletion; private static void loadOperationGetDataA_Completed(object sender, EventArgs e) { _loadOperationGetDataACompletion.Set(); } Seems kind of clunky trying to force it into being synchronous, but since this already is on a background thread, I think this is OK? So far, everything actually works, as much of a hack as it seems like it may be. It's important to note that if I try to run that code on the UI thread, it locks, because it waits on the WaitOne() forever, locking the thread, so it can't make the Load request to the server. So once the data is displayed, users can click on one as it goes by to fill a details pane with the full DataB data about that object. To do that, I have the the details pane user control subscribing to a selection event I have setup, which gets fired when the selection changes (on the UI thread). I use a similar technique there, to get the DataB object: void SelectionService_SelectedDataAChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { DataA dataA = /*Get the selected DataA*/; MyDomainContext context = new MyDomainContext(); var loadOperationGetDataB = context.Load(context.GetDataBQuery(dataA.DataAID), System.ServiceModel.DomainServices.Client.LoadBehavior.RefreshCurrent, false); loadOperationGetDataB.Completed += new EventHandler(loadOperationGetDataB_Completed); } private void loadOperationGetDataB_Completed(object sender, EventArgs e) { this.DataContext = ((LoadOperation<DataB>)sender).Entities.SingleOrDefault(); } Again, it seems kinda hacky, but it works... except on the DataB that it loads, the DataCs list is empty. I've tried all kinds of things there, and I don't see what I'm doing wrong to allow the DataCs to come down with the DataB. I'm about ready to make a 3rd query for the DataCs, but that's screaming even more hackiness to me. It really feels like I'm fighting against the grain here, like I'm doing this in an entirely unintended way. If anyone could offer any assistance, and point out what I'm doing wrong here, I'd very much appreciate it! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Implementing client callback functionality in WCF

    - by PoweredByOrange
    The project I'm working on is a client-server application with all services written in WCF and the client in WPF. There are cases where the server needs to push information to the client. I initially though about using WCF Duplex Services, but after doing some research online, I figured a lot of people are avoiding it for many reasons. The next thing I thought about was having the client create a host connection, so that the server could use that to make a service call to the client. The problem however, is that the application is deployed over the internet, so that approach requires configuring the firewall to allow incoming traffic and since most of the users are regular users, that might also require configuring the router to allow port forwarding, which again is a hassle for the user. My third option is that in the client, spawns a background thread which makes a call to the GetNotifications() method on server. This method on the server side then, blocks until an actual notification is created, then the thread is notified (using an AutoResetEvent object maybe?) and the information gets sent to the client. The idea is something like this: Client private void InitializeListener() { Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { while (true) { var notification = server.GetNotifications(); // Display the notification. } }, CancellationToken.None, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default); } Server public NotificationObject GetNotifications() { while (true) { notificationEvent.WaitOne(); return someNotificationObject; } } private void NotificationCreated() { // Inform the client of this event. notificationEvent.Set(); } In this case, NotificationCreated() is a callback method called when the server needs to send information to the client. What do you think about this approach? Is this scalable at all?

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >