Search Results

Search found 166 results on 7 pages for 'begininvoke'.

Page 2/7 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • Is it thread safe to read a form controls value (but not change it) without using Invoke/BeginInvoke from another thread

    - by goku_da_master
    I know you can read a gui control from a worker thread without using Invoke/BeginInvoke because my app is doing it now. The cross thread exception error is not being thrown and my System.Timers.Timer thread is able to read gui control values just fine (unlike this guy: can a worker thread read a control in the GUI?) Question 1: Given the cardinal rule of threads, should I be using Invoke/BeginInvoke to read form control values? And does this make it more thread-safe? The background to this question stems from a problem my app is having. It seems to randomly corrupt form controls another thread is referencing. (see question 2) Question 2: I have a second thread that needs to update form control values so I Invoke/BeginInvoke to update those values. Well this same thread needs a reference to those controls so it can update them. It holds a list of these controls (say DataGridViewRow objects). Sometimes (not always), the DataGridViewRow reference gets "corrupt". What I mean by corrupt, is the reference is still valid, but some of the DataGridViewRow properties are null (ex: row.Cells). Is this caused by question 1 or can you give me any tips on why this might be happening? Here's some code (the last line has the problem): public partial class MyForm : Form { void Timer_Elapsed(object sender) { // we're on a new thread (this function gets called every few seconds) UpdateUiHelper updateUiHelper = new UpdateUiHelper(this); foreach (DataGridViewRow row in dataGridView1.Rows) { object[] values = GetValuesFromDb(); updateUiHelper.UpdateRowValues(row, values[0]); } // .. do other work here updateUiHelper.UpdateUi(); } } public class UpdateUiHelper { private readonly Form _form; private Dictionary<DataGridViewRow, object> _rows; private delegate void RowDelegate(DataGridViewRow row); private readonly object _lockObject = new object(); public UpdateUiHelper(Form form) { _form = form; _rows = new Dictionary<DataGridViewRow, object>(); } public void UpdateRowValues(DataGridViewRow row, object value) { if (_rows.ContainsKey(row)) _rows[row] = value; else { lock (_lockObject) { _rows.Add(row, value); } } } public void UpdateUi() { foreach (DataGridViewRow row in _rows.Keys) { SetRowValueThreadSafe(row); } } private void SetRowValueThreadSafe(DataGridViewRow row) { if (_form.InvokeRequired) { _form.Invoke(new RowDelegate(SetRowValueThreadSafe), new object[] { row }); return; } // now we're on the UI thread object newValue = _rows[row]; row.Cells[0].Value = newValue; // randomly errors here with NullReferenceException, but row is never null! }

    Read the article

  • Invoke or BeginInvoke cannot be called on a control until the window handle has been created.

    - by blade3
    Hi I am trying to install SQL Server 2008 Developer Edition x64 on a Windows Server 2008 VM. I run the installer for a standalone installation and this works fine for the setup support rules bit. That passes ok but then I get this error: TITLE: SQL Server Setup failure. SQL Server Setup has encountered the following error: Invoke or BeginInvoke cannot be called on a control until the window handle has been created.. BUTTONS: OK How can I resolve this? I am getting 2008 R2 CTP but this is just a CTP. My download is from DreamSpark. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to call a function though Control.BeginInvoke in a signal-slot-like fashion?

    - by Dimitri C.
    I'd like a delegate that calls a function in a different thread when it is invoked. Currently, I'm using the following implementation: delegate void someFunctionDelegate(); //... someFunctionDelegate callBackFunction = someForm.SomeFunction; someForm.Invoke(someFunctionDelegate); However, I'd like a more compact form, combining both the someForm instance and the SomeForm.SomeFunction member function. I'm thinking of something like this: var callBackFunction = new AsynchronousCrossThreadDelegate(someForm, SomeForm.SomeFunction); callBackFunction(); // Should call someForm.BeginInvoke(SomeForm.SomeFunction); Is there a way to do so in C#/.NET? Update I'm looking for a solution that will work for functions with 0 or more parameters.

    Read the article

  • Get Func-y

    - by PhubarBaz
    I was working on a Windows form app and needed a way to call out to a service without blocking the UI. There are a lot of ways to do this but I came up with one that I thought was pretty simple. It utilizes the System.Func<> generic class, which is basically a way to create delegates using generics. It's a lot more compact and simpler than creating delegates for each method you want to call asynchronously. I wanted to get it down to one line of code, but it was a lot simpler to use three lines.In this case I have a MyServiceCall method that takes an integer parameter and returns a ServiceCallResult object.public ServiceCallResult MyServiceCall(int param1)...You start by getting a Func<> object for the method you want to call, in this case MyServiceCall. Then you call BeginInvoke() on the Func passing in the parameter. The two nulls are parameters BeginInvoke expects but can be ignored here. BeginInvoke returns an IAsyncResult object that acts like a handle to the method call. Finally to get the value you call EndInvoke on the Func passing in the IAsyncResult object you got back from BeginInvoke.Func<int, ServiceCallResult> f = MyServiceCall;IAsyncResult async = f.BeginInvoke(23, null, null);ServiceCallResult result = f.EndInvoke(async);Doing it this way fires off a new thread that calls the MyServiceCall() method. This leaves the main application thread free to update the UI while the method call is running so it doesn't become unresponsive.

    Read the article

  • How to stop ReSharper from showing error on a lambda expression where Action is expected?

    - by carlmon
    In Silverlight, System.Windows.Threading's Dispatcher.BeginInvoke() takes an Action<T> or a delegate to invoke. .NET allows me to pass just the lambda expression. but ReSharper sees it as an error, saying "Cannot resolve method 'BeginInvoke(lambda expression)'": Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(() => { DoSomething(); }) The error goes away if I explicitly create the Action around the expression like this: Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action<object>(o => { DoSomething(); })); I prefer the least amount of code in this case for the best readability. Is there a way to disable this specific ReSharper error notification? I tried some of the options, but could not find it. Thanks, Carl

    Read the article

  • Get Func-y v2.0

    - by PhubarBaz
    In my last post I talked about using funcs in C# to do async calls in WinForms to free up the main thread for the UI. In that post I demonstrated calling a method and then waiting until the value came back. Today I want to talk about calling a method and then continuing on and handling the results of the async call in a callback.The difference is that in the previous example although the UI would not lock up the user couldn't really do anything while the other thread was working because it was waiting for it to finish. This time I want to allow the user to continue to do other stuff while waiting for the thread to finish.Like before I have a service call I want to make that takes a long time to finish defined in a method called MyServiceCall. We need to define a callback method takes an IAsyncResult parameter.public ServiceCallResult MyServiceCall(int param1)...public int MyCallbackMethod(IAsyncResult ar)...We start the same way by defining a delegate to the service call method using a Func. We need to pass an AsyncCallback object into the BeginInvoke method. This will tell it to call our callback method when MyServiceCall finishes. The second parameter to BeginInvoke is the Func delegate. This will give us access to it in our callback.Func<int, ServiceCallResult> f = MyServiceCall;AsyncCallback callback =   new AsyncCallback(MyCallbackMethod);IAsyncResult async = f.BeginInvoke(23, callback, f); Now let's expand the callback method. The IAsyncResult parameter contains the Func delegate in its AsyncState property. We call EndInvoke on that Func to get the return value.public int MyCallbackMethod(IAsyncResult ar){    Func<int, ServiceCallResult> delegate =        (Func<int, ServiceCallResult>)ar.AsyncState;    ServiceCallResult result = delegate.EndInvoke(ar);}There you have it. Now you don't have to make the user wait for something that isn't critical to the loading of the page.

    Read the article

  • Typesafe fire-and-forget asynchronous delegate invocation in C#

    - by LBushkin
    I recently found myself needing a typesafe "fire-and-forget" mechanism for running code asynchronously. Ideally, what I would want to do is something like: var myAction = (Action)(() => Console.WriteLine("yada yada")); myAction.FireAndForget(); // async invocation Unfortunately, the obvious choice of calling BeginInvoke() without a corresponding EndInvoke() does not work - it results in a slow resource leak (since the asyn state is held by the runtime and never released ... it's expecting an eventual call to EndInvoke(). I also can't run the code on the .NET thread pool because it may take a very long time to complete (it's advised to only run relatively short-lived code on the thread pool) - this makes it impossible to use the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(). Initially, I only needed this behavior for methods whose signature matches Action, Action<...>, or Func<...>. So I put together a set of extension methods (see listing below) that let me do this without running into the resource leak. There are overloads for each version of Action/Func. Unfortunately, I now want to port this code to .NET 4 where the number of generic parameters on Action and Func have been increased substantially. Before I write a T4 script to generate these, I was also hoping to find a simpler more elegant way to do this. Any ideas are welcome. public static class AsyncExt { public static void FireAndForget( this Action action ) { action.BeginInvoke(OnActionCompleted, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1>( this Action<T1> action, T1 arg1 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnActionCompleted<T1>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,T2>( this Action<T1,T2> action, T1 arg1, T2 arg2 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, arg2, OnActionCompleted<T1, T2>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<TResult>(this Func<TResult> func, TResult arg1) { func.BeginInvoke(OnFuncCompleted<TResult>, func); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,TResult>(this Func<T1, TResult> action, T1 arg1) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>, action); } // more overloads of FireAndForget<..>() for Action<..> and Func<..> private static void OnActionCompleted( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1>( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action<T1>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1,T2>(IAsyncResult result) { var action = (Action<T1,T2>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<TResult>( IAsyncResult result ) { var func = (Func<TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>(IAsyncResult result) { var func = (Func<T1, TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke(result); } // more overloads of OnActionCompleted<> and OnFuncCompleted<> }

    Read the article

  • Why Is Faulty Behaviour In The .NET Framework Not Fixed?

    - by Alois Kraus
    Here is the scenario: You have a Windows Form Application that calls a method via Invoke or BeginInvoke which throws exceptions. Now you want to find out where the error did occur and how the method has been called. Here is the output we do get when we call Begin/EndInvoke or simply Invoke The actual code that was executed was like this:         private void cInvoke_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)         {             InvokingFunction(CallMode.Invoke);         }            [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining)]         void InvokingFunction(CallMode mode)         {             switch (mode)             {                 case CallMode.Invoke:                     this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(GenerateError));   The faulting method is called GenerateError which does throw a NotImplementedException exception and wraps it in a NotSupportedException.           [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining)]         void GenerateError()         {             F1();         }           private void F1()         {             try             {                 F2();             }             catch (Exception ex)             {                 throw new NotSupportedException("Outer Exception", ex);             }         }           private void F2()         {            throw new NotImplementedException("Inner Exception");         } It is clear that the method F2 and F1 did actually throw these exceptions but we do not see them in the call stack. If we directly call the InvokingFunction and catch and print the exception we can find out very easily how we did get into this situation. We see methods F1,F2,GenerateError and InvokingFunction directly in the stack trace and we see that actually two exceptions did occur. Here is for comparison what we get from Invoke/EndInvoke System.NotImplementedException: Inner Exception     StackTrace:    at System.Windows.Forms.Control.MarshaledInvoke(Control caller, Delegate method, Object[] args, Boolean synchronous)     at System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke(Delegate method, Object[] args)     at WindowsFormsApplication1.AppForm.InvokingFunction(CallMode mode)     at WindowsFormsApplication1.AppForm.cInvoke_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e)     at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)     at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e) The exception message is kept but the stack starts running from our Invoke call and not from the faulting method F2. We have therefore no clue where this exception did occur! The stack starts running at the method MarshaledInvoke because the exception is rethrown with the throw catchedException which resets the stack trace. That is bad but things are even worse because if previously lets say 5 exceptions did occur .NET will return only the first (innermost) exception. That does mean that we do not only loose the original call stack but all other exceptions and all data contained therein as well. It is a pity that MS does know about this and simply closes this issue as not important. Programmers will play a lot more around with threads than before thanks to TPL, PLINQ that do come with .NET 4. Multithreading is hyped quit a lot in the press and everybody wants to use threads. But if the .NET Framework makes it nearly impossible to track down the easiest UI multithreading issue I have a problem with that. The problem has been reported but obviously not been solved. .NET 4 Beta 2 did not have changed that dreaded GetBaseException call in MarshaledInvoke to return only the innermost exception of the complete exception stack. It is really time to fix this. WPF on the other hand does the right thing and wraps the exceptions inside a TargetInvocationException which makes much more sense. But Not everybody uses WPF for its daily work and Windows forms applications will still be used for a long time. Below is the code to repro the issues shown and how the exceptions can be rendered in a meaningful way. The default Exception.ToString implementation generates a hard to interpret stack if several nested exceptions did occur. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Data; using System.Drawing; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Windows.Forms; using System.Threading; using System.Globalization; using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;   namespace WindowsFormsApplication1 {     public partial class AppForm : Form     {         enum CallMode         {             Direct = 0,             BeginInvoke = 1,             Invoke = 2         };           public AppForm()         {             InitializeComponent();             Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentUICulture = CultureInfo.InvariantCulture;             Application.ThreadException += new System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventHandler(Application_ThreadException);         }           void Application_ThreadException(object sender, System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventArgs e)         {             cOutput.Text = PrintException(e.Exception, 0, null).ToString();         }           private void cDirectUnhandled_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)         {             InvokingFunction(CallMode.Direct);         }           private void cDirectCall_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)         {             try             {                 InvokingFunction(CallMode.Direct);             }             catch (Exception ex)             {                 cOutput.Text = PrintException(ex, 0, null).ToString();             }         }           private void cInvoke_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)         {             InvokingFunction(CallMode.Invoke);         }           private void cBeginInvokeCall_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)         {             InvokingFunction(CallMode.BeginInvoke);         }           [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining)]         void InvokingFunction(CallMode mode)         {             switch (mode)             {                 case CallMode.Direct:                     GenerateError();                     break;                 case CallMode.Invoke:                     this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(GenerateError));                     break;                 case CallMode.BeginInvoke:                     IAsyncResult res = this.BeginInvoke(new MethodInvoker(GenerateError));                     this.EndInvoke(res);                     break;             }         }           [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining)]         void GenerateError()         {             F1();         }           private void F1()         {             try             {                 F2();             }             catch (Exception ex)             {                 throw new NotSupportedException("Outer Exception", ex);             }         }           private void F2()         {            throw new NotImplementedException("Inner Exception");         }           StringBuilder PrintException(Exception ex, int identLevel, StringBuilder sb)         {             StringBuilder builtStr = sb;             if( builtStr == null )                 builtStr = new StringBuilder();               if( ex == null )                 return builtStr;                 WriteLine(builtStr, String.Format("{0}: {1}", ex.GetType().FullName, ex.Message), identLevel);             WriteLine(builtStr, String.Format("StackTrace: {0}", ShortenStack(ex.StackTrace)), identLevel + 1);             builtStr.AppendLine();               return PrintException(ex.InnerException, ++identLevel, builtStr);         }               void WriteLine(StringBuilder sb, string msg, int identLevel)         {             foreach (string trimmedLine in SplitToLines(msg)                                            .Select( (line) => line.Trim()) )             {                 for (int i = 0; i < identLevel; i++)                     sb.Append('\t');                 sb.Append(trimmedLine);                 sb.AppendLine();             }         }           string ShortenStack(string stack)         {             int nonAppFrames = 0;             // Skip stack frames not part of our app but include two foreign frames and skip the rest             // If our stack frame is encountered reset counter to 0             return SplitToLines(stack)                               .Where((line) =>                               {                                   nonAppFrames = line.Contains("WindowsFormsApplication1") ? 0 : nonAppFrames + 1;                                   return nonAppFrames < 3;                               })                              .Select((line) => line)                              .Aggregate("", (current, line) => current + line + Environment.NewLine);         }           static char[] NewLines = Environment.NewLine.ToCharArray();         string[] SplitToLines(string str)         {             return str.Split(NewLines, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);         }     } }

    Read the article

  • Adding row to DataGridView from Thread

    - by she hates me
    Hello, I would like to add rows to DataGridView from two seperate threads. I tried something with delegates and BeginInvoke but doesn't work. Here is my row updater function which is called from another function in a thread. public delegate void GRIDLOGDelegate(string ulke, string url, string ip = ""); private void GRIDLOG(string ulke, string url, string ip = "") { if (this.InvokeRequired) { // Pass the same function to BeginInvoke, // but the call would come on the correct // thread and InvokeRequired will be false. object[] myArray = new object[3]; myArray[0] = ulke; myArray[1] = url; myArray[2] = ip; this.BeginInvoke(new GRIDLOGDelegate(GRIDLOG), new object[] { myArray }); return; } //Yeni bir satir daha olustur string[] newRow = new string[] { ulke, url, ip }; dgLogGrid.Rows.Add(newRow); }

    Read the article

  • Do I need to invoke MessageBox calls?

    - by mafutrct
    To pop-up a message box, I'm using MessageBox.Show(...). I usually wrap this call in an Invoke: BeginInvoke (new Action (() => { MessageBox.Show ()); })); I've got 2 questions: Do I always need to wrap the MessageBox call in an Invoke if I'm calling from a non-GUI thread? If so, should I use BeginInvoke or Invoke? I found not much difference in my tests, BeginInvoke is, as expected (and unlike Invoke), displayed with a slight delay.

    Read the article

  • Multithreading in Windows Phone 7 emulator: A bug

    - by Laurent Bugnion
    Multithreading is supported in Windows Phone 7 Silverlight applications, however the emulator has a bug (which I discovered and was confirmed to me by the dev lead of the emulator team): If you attempt to start a background thread in the MainPage constructor, the thread never starts. The reason is a problem with the emulator UI thread which doesn’t leave any time to the background thread to start. Thankfully there is a workaround (see code below). Also, the bug should be corrected in a future release, so it’s not a big deal, even though it is really confusing when you try to understand why the *%&^$£% thread is not &$%&%$£ starting (that was me in the plane the other day ;) This code does not work: public partial class MainPage : PhoneApplicationPage { public MainPage() { InitializeComponent(); SupportedOrientations = SupportedPageOrientation.Portrait | SupportedPageOrientation.Landscape; var counter = 0; ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o => { while (true) { Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(() => { textBlockListTitle.Text = (counter++).ToString(); }); } }); } } This code does work: public MainPage() { InitializeComponent(); SupportedOrientations = SupportedPageOrientation.Portrait | SupportedPageOrientation.Landscape; var counter = 0; ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o => { while (true) { Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(() => { textBlockListTitle.Text = (counter++).ToString(); }); // NOTICE THIS LINE!!! Thread.Sleep(0); } }); } Note that even if the thread is started in a later event (for example Click of a Button), the behavior without the Thread.Sleep(0) is not good in the emulator. As of now, i would recommend always sleeping when starting a new thread. Happy coding: Laurent   Laurent Bugnion (GalaSoft) Subscribe | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | LinkedIn

    Read the article

  • Help needed with InvokeRequired for Web.UI

    - by Ali
    I have a multi-threaded application in C# which tries to write to a TextBox in a Windows.Forms created by another thread. As threads cannot modify what has not been created by them, I was using InvokeRequired as shown on the code below, to solve this problem. public delegate void MessageDelegate(Communication message); void agent_MessageReceived(Communication message) { if (InvokeRequired) { BeginInvoke(new MessageDelegate(agent_MessageReceived), new object[] { message }); } else { TextBox1.Text += message.Body; } } Now I need to do the same for a TextBox in an ASP.NET app, but apparently neither InvokeRequired nor BeginInvoke exist for TextBox in a Web.UI. What can I do?

    Read the article

  • Boiler plate code replacement - is there anything bad about this code?

    - by Benjol
    I've recently created these two (unrelated) methods to replace lots of boiler-plate code in my winforms application. As far as I can tell, they work ok, but I need some reassurance/advice on whether there are some problems I might be missing. (from memory) static class SafeInvoker { //Utility to avoid boiler-plate InvokeRequired code //Usage: SafeInvoker.Invoke(myCtrl, () => myCtrl.Enabled = false); public static void Invoke(Control ctrl, Action cmd) { if (ctrl.InvokeRequired) ctrl.BeginInvoke(new MethodInvoker(cmd)); else cmd(); } //Replaces OnMyEventRaised boiler-plate code //Usage: SafeInvoker.RaiseEvent(this, MyEventRaised) public static void RaiseEvent(object sender, EventHandler evnt) { var handler = evnt; if (handler != null) handler(sender, EventArgs.Empty); } } EDIT: See related question here UPDATE Following on from deadlock problems (related in this question), I have switched from Invoke to BeginInvoke (see an explanation here). Another Update Regarding the second snippet, I am increasingly inclined to use the 'empty delegate' pattern, which fixes this problem 'at source' by declaring the event directly with an empty handler, like so: event EventHandler MyEventRaised = delegate {};

    Read the article

  • How to prevent duplicates, macro or something?

    - by blez
    Well, the problem is that I've got a lot of code like this for each event passed to the GUI, how can I shortify this? Macros wont do the work I guess. Is there a more generic way to do something like a 'template' ? private delegate void DownloadProgressDelegate(object sender, DownloaderProgressArgs e); void DownloadProgress(object sender, DownloaderProgressArgs e) { if (this.InvokeRequired) { this.BeginInvoke(new DownloadProgressDelegate(DownloadProgress), new object[] { sender, e }); return; } label2.Text = d.speedOutput.ToString(); } private delegate void DownloadSpeedDelegate(object sender, DownloaderProgressArgs e); void DownloadSpeed(object sender, DownloaderProgressArgs e) { if (this.InvokeRequired) { this.BeginInvoke(new DownloadSpeedDelegate(DownloadSpeed), new object[] { sender, e }); return; } string speed = ""; speed = (e.DownloadSpeed / 1024).ToString() + "kb/s"; label3.Text = speed; }

    Read the article

  • Can an asynchronously fired event run synchronously on a form?

    - by cyclotis04
    [VS 2010 Beta with .Net Framework 3.5] I've written a C# component to asynchronously monitor a socket and raise events when data is received. I set the VB form to show message boxes when the event is raised. What I've noticed is that when the component raises the event synchronously, the message box blocks the component code and locks the form until the user closes the message. When it's raised asynchronously, it neither blocks the code, nor locks the form. What I want is a way to raise an event in such a way that it does not block the code, but is called on the same thread as the form (so that it locks the form until the user selects an option.) Can you help me out? Thanks. [Component] using System; using System.Threading; using System.ComponentModel; namespace mySpace { public delegate void SyncEventHandler(object sender, SyncEventArgs e); public delegate void AsyncEventHandler(object sender, AsyncEventArgs e); public class myClass { readonly object syncEventLock = new object(); readonly object asyncEventLock = new object(); SyncEventHandler syncEvent; AsyncEventHandler asyncEvent; private delegate void WorkerDelegate(string strParam, int intParam); public void DoWork(string strParam, int intParam) { OnSyncEvent(new SyncEventArgs()); AsyncOperation asyncOp = AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation(null); WorkerDelegate delWorker = new WorkerDelegate(ClientWorker); IAsyncResult result = delWorker.BeginInvoke(strParam, intParam, null, null); } private void ClientWorker(string strParam, int intParam) { Thread.Sleep(2000); OnAsyncEvent(new AsyncEventArgs()); OnAsyncEvent(new AsyncEventArgs()); } public event SyncEventHandler SyncEvent { add { lock (syncEventLock) syncEvent += value; } remove { lock (syncEventLock) syncEvent -= value; } } public event AsyncEventHandler AsyncEvent { add { lock (asyncEventLock) asyncEvent += value; } remove { lock (asyncEventLock) asyncEvent -= value; } } protected void OnSyncEvent(SyncEventArgs e) { SyncEventHandler handler; lock (syncEventLock) handler = syncEvent; if (handler != null) handler(this, e, null, null); // Blocks and locks //if (handler != null) handler.BeginInvoke(this, e, null, null); // Neither blocks nor locks } protected void OnAsyncEvent(AsyncEventArgs e) { AsyncEventHandler handler; lock (asyncEventLock) handler = asyncEvent; //if (handler != null) handler(this, e, null, null); // Blocks and locks if (handler != null) handler.BeginInvoke(this, e, null, null); // Neither blocks nor locks } } } [Form] Imports mySpace Public Class Form1 Public WithEvents component As New mySpace.myClass() Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click component.DoWork("String", 1) End Sub Private Sub component_SyncEvent(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As pbxapi.SyncEventArgs) Handles component.SyncEvent MessageBox.Show("Synchronous event", "Raised:", MessageBoxButtons.OK) End Sub Private Sub component_AsyncEvent(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As pbxapi.AsyncEventArgs) Handles component.AsyncEvent MessageBox.Show("Asynchronous event", "Raised:", MessageBoxButtons.OK) End Sub End Class

    Read the article

  • When is it useful to define your own delegates instead of using the generics?

    - by Carlos
    I've been going through some old code, where I came across some custom defined delegates, which are used thus: private delegate void ListenDelegate(UdpClient listener, bool multicast); private void ListenOn(UdpClient listener, bool multicast) { new ListenDelegate(_ListenLoop).BeginInvoke(listener, multicast, null, null); } With some of the new .NET framework versions, you can do the following: private void ListenOn(UdpClient listener, bool multicast) { new Action<UdpClient, bool>(_ListenLoop).BeginInvoke(listener, multicast, null, null); } This ought to be exactly the same. Is there any point in defining your own delegates, when the generic delegates seem to do the same job with less space? Or have I missed something about the generics that makes them not equivalent?

    Read the article

  • Only assignment, call, increment, decrement, and new object expressions can be used as a statement : Messagebox

    - by Nuru Salihu
    This what i am trying to achieved if(this.BeginInvoke((Action)(() => MessageBox.Show("Test", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo) == DialogResult.No))) The above gives error. I try seperating the delegate to an outside method like delegate void test(string text); private void SetTest(string text) { if(MessageBox.Show(text,"", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo) == DialogResult.No) } But it breach the very reason why i need the delegate. I found out the first works for me but i don't know how to put it in an if/else statement. Pls any help in a better way i can achieve some thing like below would be appreciated. if(this.BeginInvoke((Action)(() => MessageBox.Show("Test", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo) == DialogResult.No)))

    Read the article

  • Action T synchronous and asynchronous

    - by raffaeu
    Hi everybody I have a contextmenustrip control that allows you to execute an action is two different flawours. Sync and Async. I am trying to covert everything using Generics so I did this: public class BaseContextMenu<T> : IContextMenu { private T executor ... public void Exec(Action<T> action){ action.Invoke(this.executor); } public void ExecAsync(Action<T> asyncAction){ ... } How I can write the async method in order to execute the generic action and 'do something' with the menu in the meanwhile? I saw that the signature of BeginInvoke is something like: asyncAction.BeginInvoke(thi.executor, IAsyncCallback, object);

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between Invoking and BeginInvoking a MessageBox?

    - by mafutrct
    In a form, compare BeginInvoke (new Action (() => { MessageBox.Show ()); })); with Invoke (new Action (() => { MessageBox.Show ()); })); What is the difference, and when should I use one over the other? How is the behavior affected by the message pump of the MessageBox? I did some testing and found that both methods block the UI. The only difference is that Invoke is actually called instantly while BeginInvoke takes a (very short) time until the code is run. This is to be expected.

    Read the article

  • Crossthread exception and invokerequired solution doesn't change my control value

    - by Pilouk
    EDIT Solution : Here i'm setting my byref value in each object then i'm running a backgroundworker Private Sub TelechargeFichier() Dim DocManquant As Boolean = False Dim docName As String = "" Dim lg As String = "" Dim telechargementFini As Boolean = False lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1478") prgBar.Maximum = m_listeFichiers.Count For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeFichiers.Count - 1 m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefLabel(lblMessage) m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefPrgbar(prgBar) m_listeThreads.Add(New Thread(AddressOf m_listeFichiers(i).DownloadMe)) Next m_bgWorker = New BackgroundWorker m_bgWorker.WorkerReportsProgress = True AddHandler m_bgWorker.DoWork, AddressOf DownloadFiles m_bgWorker.RunWorkerAsync() ''Completed 'lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1383") 'Me.DialogResult = System.Windows.Forms.DialogResult.OK End Sub Here is my downloadFiles function : Note that each start will do the downloadMe function see below too Private Sub DownloadFiles(sender As Object, e As DoWorkEventArgs) For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Start() Next For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Join() Next End Sub I have multiple thread that each will download a ftp file. I would like that each file that have been completed will set a value to a progress bar and a label from my UI thread. For some reason invokerequired never change to false. Here is my little function that start all the thread Private Sub TelechargeFichier() Dim DocManquant As Boolean = False Dim docName As String = "" Dim lg As String = "" Dim telechargementFini As Boolean = False lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1478") prgBar.Maximum = m_listeFichiers.Count For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeFichiers.Count - 1 m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefLabel(lblMessage) m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefPrgbar(prgBar) m_listeThreads.Add(New Thread(AddressOf m_listeFichiers(i).DownloadMe)) Next For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Start() Next For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Join() Next 'Completed lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1383") Me.DialogResult = System.Windows.Forms.DialogResult.OK End Sub Here my property that hold the Byref control from the UI thread. This is in my object which content the addressof function that will download the file (DownloadMe) Public Sub Set_ByRefPrgbar(ByRef prgbar As ProgressBar) m_prgBar = prgbar End Sub Public Sub Set_ByRefLabel(ByRef lbl As EasyDeal.Controls.EasyDealLabel3D) m_lblMessage = lbl End Sub Here is the download function : Public Sub DownloadMe() Dim ftpReq As FtpWebRequest Dim ftpResp As FtpWebResponse = Nothing Dim streamInput As Stream Dim fileStreamOutput As FileStream Try ftpReq = CType(WebRequest.Create(EasyDeal.Controls.Common.FTP_CONNECTION & m_downloadFtpPath & m_filename), FtpWebRequest) ftpReq.Credentials = New NetworkCredential(FTP_USER, FTP_PASS) ftpReq.Method = WebRequestMethods.Ftp.DownloadFile ftpResp = ftpReq.GetResponse streamInput = ftpResp.GetResponseStream() fileStreamOutput = New FileStream(m_outputPath, FileMode.Create, FileAccess.ReadWrite) ReadWriteStream(streamInput, fileStreamOutput) Catch ex As Exception 'Au pire la fichier sera pas downloader Finally If ftpResp IsNot Nothing Then ftpResp.Close() End If Dim nomFichier As String = m_displaynameEN If EasyDealChangeLanguage.GetCurrentLanguageTypes = EasyDealChangeLanguage.EnumLanguageType.Francais Then nomFichier = m_displaynameFR End If If m_lblMessage IsNot Nothing Then EasyDealCommon.TH_SetControlText(m_lblMessage, String.Format(EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1479"), nomFichier)) End If If m_prgBar IsNot Nothing Then EasyDealCommon.TH_SetPrgValue(m_prgBar, 1) End If End Try End Sub Here is the crossthread invoke solution function : Public Sub TH_SetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control, ByVal text As String) If ctl.InvokeRequired Then ctl.BeginInvoke(New Action(Of Control, String)(AddressOf TH_SetControlText), ctl, text) Else ctl.Text = text End If End Sub Public Sub TH_SetPrgValue(ByVal prg As ProgressBar, ByVal value As Integer) If prg.InvokeRequired Then prg.BeginInvoke(New Action(Of ProgressBar, Integer)(AddressOf TH_SetPrgValue), prg, value) Else prg.Value += value End If End Sub The problem is the invokerequired never get to false it actually goes in to beginInvoke but never end in the Else section to set the value.

    Read the article

  • Can I use a single instance of a delegate to start multiple Asynchronous Requests?

    - by RobV
    Just wondered if someone could clarify the use of BeginInvoke on an instance of some delegate when you want to make multiple asynchronous calls since the MSDN documentation doesn't really cover/mention this at all. What I want to do is something like the following: MyDelegate d = new MyDelegate(this.TargetMethod); List<IAsyncResult> results = new List<IAsyncResult>(); //Start multiple asynchronous calls for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) { results.Add(d.BeginInvoke(someParams, null, null)); } //Wait for all my calls to finish WaitHandle.WaitAll(results.Select(r => r.AsyncWaitHandle).ToArray()); //Process the Results The question is can I do this with one instance of the delegate or do I need an instance of the delegate for each individual call? Given that EndInvoke() takes an IAsyncResult as a parameter I would assume that the former is correct but I can't see anything in the documentation to indicate either way.

    Read the article

  • Parallelism in .NET – Part 15, Making Tasks Run: The TaskScheduler

    - by Reed
    In my introduction to the Task class, I specifically made mention that the Task class does not directly provide it’s own execution.  In addition, I made a strong point that the Task class itself is not directly related to threads or multithreading.  Rather, the Task class is used to implement our decomposition of tasks.  Once we’ve implemented our tasks, we need to execute them.  In the Task Parallel Library, the execution of Tasks is handled via an instance of the TaskScheduler class. The TaskScheduler class is an abstract class which provides a single function: it schedules the tasks and executes them within an appropriate context.  This class is the class which actually runs individual Task instances.  The .NET Framework provides two (internal) implementations of the TaskScheduler class. Since a Task, based on our decomposition, should be a self-contained piece of code, parallel execution makes sense when executing tasks.  The default implementation of the TaskScheduler class, and the one most often used, is based on the ThreadPool.  This can be retrieved via the TaskScheduler.Default property, and is, by default, what is used when we just start a Task instance with Task.Start(). Normally, when a Task is started by the default TaskScheduler, the task will be treated as a single work item, and run on a ThreadPool thread.  This pools tasks, and provides Task instances all of the advantages of the ThreadPool, including thread pooling for reduced resource usage, and an upper cap on the number of work items.  In addition, .NET 4 brings us a much improved thread pool, providing work stealing and reduced locking within the thread pool queues.  By using the default TaskScheduler, our Tasks are run asynchronously on the ThreadPool. There is one notable exception to my above statements when using the default TaskScheduler.  If a Task is created with the TaskCreationOptions set to TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, the default TaskScheduler will generate a new thread for that Task, at least in the current implementation.  This is useful for Tasks which will persist for most of the lifetime of your application, since it prevents your Task from starving the ThreadPool of one of it’s work threads. The Task Parallel Library provides one other implementation of the TaskScheduler class.  In addition to providing a way to schedule tasks on the ThreadPool, the framework allows you to create a TaskScheduler which works within a specified SynchronizationContext.  This scheduler can be retrieved within a thread that provides a valid SynchronizationContext by calling the TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() method. This implementation of TaskScheduler is intended for use with user interface development.  Windows Forms and Windows Presentation Foundation both require any access to user interface controls to occur on the same thread that created the control.  For example, if you want to set the text within a Windows Forms TextBox, and you’re working on a background thread, that UI call must be marshaled back onto the UI thread.  The most common way this is handled depends on the framework being used.  In Windows Forms, Control.Invoke or Control.BeginInvoke is most often used.  In WPF, the equivelent calls are Dispatcher.Invoke or Dispatcher.BeginInvoke. As an example, say we’re working on a background thread, and we want to update a TextBlock in our user interface with a status label.  The code would typically look something like: // Within background thread work... string status = GetUpdatedStatus(); Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal, new Action( () => { statusLabel.Text = status; })); // Continue on in background method .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } This works fine, but forces your method to take a dependency on WPF or Windows Forms.  There is an alternative option, however.  Both Windows Forms and WPF, when initialized, setup a SynchronizationContext in their thread, which is available on the UI thread via the SynchronizationContext.Current property.  This context is used by classes such as BackgroundWorker to marshal calls back onto the UI thread in a framework-agnostic manner. The Task Parallel Library provides the same functionality via the TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() method.  When setting up our Tasks, as long as we’re working on the UI thread, we can construct a TaskScheduler via: TaskScheduler uiScheduler = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext(); We then can use this scheduler on any thread to marshal data back onto the UI thread.  For example, our code above can then be rewritten as: string status = GetUpdatedStatus(); (new Task(() => { statusLabel.Text = status; })) .Start(uiScheduler); // Continue on in background method This is nice since it allows us to write code that isn’t tied to Windows Forms or WPF, but is still fully functional with those technologies.  I’ll discuss even more uses for the SynchronizationContext based TaskScheduler when I demonstrate task continuations, but even without continuations, this is a very useful construct. In addition to the two implementations provided by the Task Parallel Library, it is possible to implement your own TaskScheduler.  The ParallelExtensionsExtras project within the Samples for Parallel Programming provides nine sample TaskScheduler implementations.  These include schedulers which restrict the maximum number of concurrent tasks, run tasks on a single threaded apartment thread, use a new thread per task, and more.

    Read the article

  • WPF: Running code when Window rendering is completed

    - by Ilya Verbitskiy
    WPF is full of surprises. It makes complicated tasks easier, but at the same time overcomplicates easy  task as well. A good example of such overcomplicated things is how to run code when you’re sure that window rendering is completed. Window Loaded event does not always work, because controls might be still rendered. I had this issue working with Infragistics XamDockManager. It continued rendering widgets even when the Window Loaded event had been raised. Unfortunately there is not any “official” solution for this problem. But there is a trick. You can execute your code asynchronously using Dispatcher class.   Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => Trace.WriteLine("DONE!", "Rendering")), DispatcherPriority.ContextIdle, null);   This code should be added to your Window Loaded event handler. It is executed when all controls inside your window are rendered. I created a small application to prove this idea. The application has one window with a few buttons. Each button logs when it has changed its actual size. It also logs when Window Loaded event is raised, and, finally, when rendering is completed. Window’s layout is straightforward.   1: <Window x:Class="OnRendered.MainWindow" 2: xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" 3: xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" 4: Title="Run the code when window rendering is completed." Height="350" Width="525" 5: Loaded="OnWindowLoaded"> 6: <Window.Resources> 7: <Style TargetType="{x:Type Button}"> 8: <Setter Property="Padding" Value="7" /> 9: <Setter Property="Margin" Value="5" /> 10: <Setter Property="HorizontalAlignment" Value="Center" /> 11: <Setter Property="VerticalAlignment" Value="Center" /> 12: </Style> 13: </Window.Resources> 14: <StackPanel> 15: <Button x:Name="Button1" Content="Button 1" SizeChanged="OnSizeChanged" /> 16: <Button x:Name="Button2" Content="Button 2" SizeChanged="OnSizeChanged" /> 17: <Button x:Name="Button3" Content="Button 3" SizeChanged="OnSizeChanged" /> 18: <Button x:Name="Button4" Content="Button 4" SizeChanged="OnSizeChanged" /> 19: <Button x:Name="Button5" Content="Button 5" SizeChanged="OnSizeChanged" /> 20: </StackPanel> 21: </Window>   SizeChanged event handler simply traces that the event has happened.   1: private void OnSizeChanged(object sender, SizeChangedEventArgs e) 2: { 3: Button button = (Button)sender; 4: Trace.WriteLine("Size has been changed", button.Name); 5: }   Window Loaded event handler is slightly more interesting. First it scheduler the code to be executed using Dispatcher class, and then logs the event.   1: private void OnWindowLoaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) 2: { 3: Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => Trace.WriteLine("DONE!", "Rendering")), DispatcherPriority.ContextIdle, null); 4: Trace.WriteLine("Loaded", "Window"); 5: }   As the result I had seen these trace messages.   1: Button5: Size has been changed 2: Button4: Size has been changed 3: Button3: Size has been changed 4: Button2: Size has been changed 5: Button1: Size has been changed 6: Window: Loaded 7: Rendering: DONE!   You can find the solution in GitHub.

    Read the article

  • Understanding the Silverlight Dispatcher

    - by Matt
    I had a Invalid Cross Thread access issue, but a little research and I managed to fix it by using the Dispatcher. Now in my app I have objects with lazy loading. I'd make an Async call using WCF and as usual I use the Dispatcher to update my objects DataContext, however it didn't work for this scenario. I did however find a solution here. Here's what I don't understand. In my UserControl I have code to call an Toggle method on my object. The call to this method is within a Dispatcher like so. Dispatcher.BeginInvoke( () => _CurrentPin.ToggleInfoPanel() ); As I mentioned before this was not enough to satisfy Silverlight. I had to make another Dispatcher call within my object. My object is NOT a UIElement, but a simple class that handles all its own loading/saving. So the problem was fixed by calling Deployment.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke( () => dataContext.Detail = detail ); within my class. Why did I have to call the Dispatcher twice to achieve this? Shouldn't a high-level call be enough? Is there a difference between the Deployment.Current.Dispatcher and the Dispatcher in a UIElement?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >