Search Results

Search found 41 results on 2 pages for 'manualresetevent'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

  • Odd performance with C# Asynchronous server socket

    - by The.Anti.9
    I'm working on a web server in C# and I have it running on Asynchronous socket calls. The weird thing is that for some reason, when you start loading pages, the 3rd request is where the browser won't connect. It just keeps saying "Connecting..." and doesn't ever stop. If I hit stop. and then refresh, it will load again, but if I try another time after that it does the thing where it doesn't load again. And it continues in that cycle. I'm not really sure what is making it do that. The code is kind of hacked together from a couple of examples and some old code I had. Any miscellaneous tips would be helpful as well. Heres my little Listener class that handles everything (pastied here. thought it might be easier to read this way) using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Net; using System.Net.Sockets; using System.Text; using System.Threading; namespace irek.Server { public class Listener { private int port; private Socket server; private Byte[] data = new Byte[2048]; static ManualResetEvent allDone = new ManualResetEvent(false); public Listener(int _port) { port = _port; } public void Run() { server = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp); IPEndPoint iep = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, port); server.Bind(iep); Console.WriteLine("Server Initialized."); server.Listen(5); Console.WriteLine("Listening..."); while (true) { allDone.Reset(); server.BeginAccept(new AsyncCallback(AcceptCon), server); allDone.WaitOne(); } } private void AcceptCon(IAsyncResult iar) { allDone.Set(); Socket s = (Socket)iar.AsyncState; Socket s2 = s.EndAccept(iar); SocketStateObject state = new SocketStateObject(); state.workSocket = s2; s2.BeginReceive(state.buffer, 0, SocketStateObject.BUFFER_SIZE, 0, new AsyncCallback(Read), state); } private void Read(IAsyncResult iar) { try { SocketStateObject state = (SocketStateObject)iar.AsyncState; Socket s = state.workSocket; int read = s.EndReceive(iar); if (read > 0) { state.sb.Append(Encoding.ASCII.GetString(state.buffer, 0, read)); if (s.Available > 0) { s.BeginReceive(state.buffer, 0, SocketStateObject.BUFFER_SIZE, 0, new AsyncCallback(Read), state); return; } } if (state.sb.Length > 1) { string requestString = state.sb.ToString(); // HANDLE REQUEST HERE // Temporary response string resp = "<h1>It Works!</h1>"; string head = "HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\nContent-Type: text/html;\r\nServer: irek\r\nContent-Length:"+resp.Length+"\r\n\r\n"; byte[] answer = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(head+resp); // end temp. state.workSocket.BeginSend(answer, 0, answer.Length, SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(Send), state.workSocket); } } catch (Exception) { return; } } private void Send(IAsyncResult iar) { try { SocketStateObject state = (SocketStateObject)iar.AsyncState; int sent = state.workSocket.EndSend(iar); state.workSocket.Shutdown(SocketShutdown.Both); state.workSocket.Close(); } catch (Exception) { } return; } } } And my SocketStateObject: public class SocketStateObject { public Socket workSocket = null; public const int BUFFER_SIZE = 1024; public byte[] buffer = new byte[BUFFER_SIZE]; public StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); }

    Read the article

  • Problems with Asynchronous UDP Sockets

    - by ihatenetworkcoding
    Hi, I'm struggling a bit with socket programming (something I'm not at all familiar with) and I can't find anything which helps from google or MSDN (awful). Apologies for the length of this. Basically I have an existing service which recieves and responds to requests over UDP. I can't change this at all. I also have a client within my webapp which dispatches and listens for responses to that service. The existing client I've been given is a singleton which creates a socket and an array of response slots, and then creates a background thread with an infinite looping method that makes "sock.Receive()" calls and pushes the data received into the slot array. All kinds of things about this seem wrong to me and the infinite thread breaks my unit testing so I'm trying to replace this service with one which makes it's it's send/receives asynchronously instead. Point 1: Is this the right approach? I want a non-blocking, scalable, thread-safe service. My first attempt is roughly like this, which sort of worked but the data I got back was always shorter than expected (i.e. the buffer did not have the number of bytes requested) and seemed to throw exceptions when processed. private Socket MyPreConfiguredSocket; public object Query() { //build a request this.MyPreConfiguredSocket.SendTo(MYREQUEST, packet.Length, SocketFlags.Multicast, this._target); IAsyncResult h = this._sock.BeginReceiveFrom(response, 0, BUFFER_SIZE, SocketFlags.None, ref this._target, new AsyncCallback(ARecieve), this._sock); if (!h.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(TIMEOUT)) { throw new Exception("Timed out"); } //process response data (always shortened) } private void ARecieve (IAsyncResult result) { int bytesreceived = (result as Socket).EndReceiveFrom(result, ref this._target); } My second attempt was based on more google trawling and this recursive pattern I frequently saw, but this version always times out! It never gets to ARecieve. public object Query() { //build a request this.MyPreConfiguredSocket.SendTo(MYREQUEST, packet.Length, SocketFlags.Multicast, this._target); State s = new State(this.MyPreConfiguredSocket); this.MyPreConfiguredSocket.BeginReceiveFrom(s.Buffer, 0, BUFFER_SIZE, SocketFlags.None, ref this._target, new AsyncCallback(ARecieve), s); if (!s.Flag.WaitOne(10000)) { throw new Exception("Timed out"); } //always thrown //process response data } private void ARecieve (IAsyncResult result) { //never gets here! State s = (result as State); int bytesreceived = s.Sock.EndReceiveFrom(result, ref this._target); if (bytesreceived > 0) { s.Received += bytesreceived; this._sock.BeginReceiveFrom(s.Buffer, s.Received, BUFFER_SIZE, SocketFlags.None, ref this._target, new AsyncCallback(ARecieve), s); } else { s.Flag.Set(); } } private class State { public State(Socket sock) { this._sock = sock; this._buffer = new byte[BUFFER_SIZE]; this._buffer.Initialize(); } public Socket Sock; public byte[] Buffer; public ManualResetEvent Flag = new ManualResetEvent(false); public int Received = 0; } Point 2: So clearly I'm getting something quite wrong. Point 3: I'm not sure if I'm going about this right. How does the data coming from the remote service even get to the right listening thread? Do I need to create a socket per request? Out of my comfort zone here. Need help.

    Read the article

  • First toe in the water with Object Databases : DB4O

    - by REA_ANDREW
    I have been wanting to have a play with Object Databases for a while now, and today I have done just that.  One of the obvious choices I had to make was which one to use.  My criteria for choosing one today was simple, I wanted one which I could literally wack in and start using, which means I wanted one which either had a .NET API or was designed/ported to .NET.  My decision was between two being: db4o MongoDb I went for db4o for the single reason that it looked like I could get it running and integrated the quickest.  I am making a Blogging application and front end as a project with which I can test and learn with these object databases.  Another requirement which I thought I would mention is that I also want to be able to use the said database in a shared hosting environment where I cannot install, run and maintain a server instance of said object database.  I can do exactly this with db4o. I have not tried to do this with MongoDb at time of writing.  There are quite a few in the industry now and you read an interesting post about different ones and how they are used with some of the heavy weights in the industry here : http://blog.marcua.net/post/442594842/notes-from-nosql-live-boston-2010 In the example which I am building I am using StructureMap as my IOC.  To inject the object for db4o I went with a Singleton instance scope as I am using a single file and I need this to be available to any thread on in the process as opposed to using the server implementation where I could open and close client connections with the server handling each one respectively.  Again I want to point out that I have chosen to stick with the non server implementation of db4o as I wanted to use this in a shared hosting environment where I cannot have such servers installed and run.     public static class Bootstrapper    {        public static void ConfigureStructureMap()        {            ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => x.AddRegistry(new MyApplicationRegistry()));        }    }    public class MyApplicationRegistry : Registry    {        public const string DB4O_FILENAME = "blog123";        public string DbPath        {            get            {                return Path.Combine(Path.GetDirectoryName(Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof(IBlogRepository)).Location), DB4O_FILENAME);            }        }        public MyApplicationRegistry()        {            For<IObjectContainer>().Singleton().Use(                () => Db4oEmbedded.OpenFile(Db4oEmbedded.NewConfiguration(), DbPath));            Scan(assemblyScanner =>            {                assemblyScanner.TheCallingAssembly();                assemblyScanner.WithDefaultConventions();            });        }    } So my code above is the structure map plumbing which I use for the application.  I am doing this simply as a quick scratch pad to play around with different things so I am simply segregating logical layers with folder structure as opposed to different assemblies.  It will be easy if I want to do this with any segment but for the purposes of example I have literally just wacked everything in the one assembly.  You can see an example file structure I have on the right.  I am planning on testing out a few implementations of the object databases out there so I can program to an interface of IBlogRepository One of the things which I was unsure about was how it performed under a multi threaded environment which it will undoubtedly be used 9 times out of 10, and for the reason that I am using the db context as a singleton, I assumed that the library was of course thread safe but I did not know as I have not read any where in the documentation, again this is probably me not reading things correctly.  In short though I threw together a simple test where I simply iterate to a limit each time kicking a common task off with a thread from a thread pool.  This task simply created and added an random Post and added it to the storage. The execution of the threads I put inside the Setup of the Test and then simply ensure the number of posts committed to the database is equal to the number of iterations I made; here is the code I used to do the multi thread jobs: [TestInitialize] public void Setup() { var sw = new System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch(); sw.Start(); var resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(20, 20); for (var i = 0; i < MAX_ITERATIONS; i++) { ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate(object state) { var eventToReset = (ManualResetEvent)state; var post = new Post { Author = MockUser, Content = "Mock Content", Title = "Title" }; Repository.Put(post); var counter = Interlocked.Decrement(ref _threadCounter); if (counter == 0) eventToReset.Set(); }, resetEvent); } WaitHandle.WaitAll(new[] { resetEvent }); sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("{0:00}.{1:00} seconds", sw.Elapsed.Seconds, sw.Elapsed.Milliseconds); }   I was not doing this to test out the speed performance of db4o but while I was doing this I could not help but put in a StopWatch and see out of sheer interest how fast it would take to insert a number of Posts.  I tested it out in this case with 10000 inserts of a small, simple POCO and it resulted in an average of:  899.36 object inserts / second.  Again this is just  simple crude test which came out of my curiosity at how it performed under many threads when using the non server implementation of db4o. The spec summary of the computer I used is as follows: With regards to the actual Repository implementation itself, it really is quite straight forward and I have to say I am very surprised at how easy it was to integrate and get up and running.  One thing I have noticed in the exposure I have had so far is that the Query returns IList<T> as opposed to IQueryable<T> but again I have not looked into this in depth and this could be there already and if not they have provided everything one needs to make there own repository.  An example of a couple of methods from by db4o implementation of the BlogRepository is below: public class BlogRepository : IBlogRepository { private readonly IObjectContainer _db; public BlogRepository(IObjectContainer db) { _db = db; } public void Put(DomainObject obj) { _db.Store(obj); } public void Delete(DomainObject obj) { _db.Delete(obj); } public Post GetByKey(object key) { return _db.Query<Post>(post => post.Key == key).FirstOrDefault(); } … Anyways I hope to get a few more implementations going of the object databases and literally just get familiarized with them and the concept of no sql databases. Cheers for now, Andrew

    Read the article

  • PLINQ Adventure Land - WaitForAll

    - by adweigert
    PLINQ is awesome for getting a lot of work done fast, but one thing I haven't figured out yet is how to start work with PLINQ but only let it execute for a maximum amount of time and react if it is taking too long. So, as I must admit I am still learning PLINQ, I created this extension in that ignorance. It behaves similar to ForAll<> but takes a timeout and returns false if the threads don't complete in the specified amount of time. Hope this helps someone else take PLINQ further, it definitely has helped for me ...  public static bool WaitForAll<T>(this ParallelQuery<T> query, TimeSpan timeout, Action<T> action) { Contract.Requires(query != null); Contract.Requires(action != null); var exception = (Exception)null; var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(); var forAllWithCancellation = new Action(delegate { try { query.WithCancellation(cts.Token).ForAll(action); } catch (OperationCanceledException) { // NOOP } catch (AggregateException ex) { exception = ex; } }); var mrs = new ManualResetEvent(false); var callback = new AsyncCallback(delegate { mrs.Set(); }); var result = forAllWithCancellation.BeginInvoke(callback, null); if (mrs.WaitOne(timeout)) { forAllWithCancellation.EndInvoke(result); if (exception != null) { throw exception; } return true; } else { cts.Cancel(); return false; } }

    Read the article

  • C# How to kill parent thread

    - by Royson
    A parent has several child threads. If user click on stop button the parent thread should be killed with all child threads. //calls a main thread mainThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(startWorking)); mainThread.Start(); //////////////////////////////////////////////// startWorking() { ManualResetEventInstance = new ManualResetEvent(false); ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(m_ThreadPoolLimit, m_ThreadPoolLimit); for(int i = 0; i < list.count ; i++) { ThreadData obj_ThreadData = new ThreadData(); obj_ThreadData.name = list[i]; m_ThreadCount++; //execute WaitCallback obj_waitCallBack = new WaitCallback(startParsing); ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(obj_waitCallBack, obj_ThreadData); } ManualResetEventInstance.WaitOne(); } I want to kill mainThread.

    Read the article

  • Using threads and event handlers within a WCF Web Service

    - by user368984
    While making a WCF Web Service, I came across a problem while using a method with a webbrowser control. The method starts a thread and uses a webbrowser control to fill in some forms and click further, waiting for a event handler to fire and return a answer I need. The method is tested and works within its own enviroment, but used in a WCF Web Service enviroment, the event handlers just won't fire. A result of that is the waiting manualresetevent not ending. Is this because of the new thread or because of the bad event handling of the web service? If yes, what is a reasonable solution?

    Read the article

  • C# .Net 3.5 Asynchronous Socket Server Performance Problem

    - by iBrAaAa
    I'm developing an Asynchronous Game Server using .Net Socket Asynchronous Model( BeginAccept/EndAccept...etc.) The problem I'm facing is described like that: When I have only one client connected, the server response time is very fast but once a second client connects, the server response time increases too much. I've measured the time from a client sends a message to the server until it gets the reply in both cases. I found that the average time in case of one client is about 17ms and in case of 2 clients about 280ms!!! What I really see is that: When 2 clients are connected and only one of them is moving(i.e. requesting service from the server) it is equivalently equal to the case when only one client is connected(i.e. fast response). However, when the 2 clients move at the same time(i.e. requests service from the server at the same time) their motion becomes very slow (as if the server replies each one of them in order i.e. not simultaneously). Basically, what I am doing is that: When a client requests a permission for motion from the server and the server grants him the request, the server then broadcasts the new position of the client to all the players. So if two clients are moving in the same time, the server is eventually trying to broadcast to both clients the new position of each of them at the same time. EX: Client1 asks to go to position (2,2) Client2 asks to go to position (5,5) Server sends to each of Client1 & Client2 the same two messages: message1: "Client1 at (2,2)" message2: "Client2 at (5,5)" I believe that the problem comes from the fact that Socket class is thread safe according MSDN documentation http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.sockets.socket.aspx. (NOT SURE THAT IT IS THE PROBLEM) Below is the code for the server: /// /// This class is responsible for handling packet receiving and sending /// public class NetworkManager { /// /// An integer to hold the server port number to be used for the connections. Its default value is 5000. /// private readonly int port = 5000; /// /// hashtable contain all the clients connected to the server. /// key: player Id /// value: socket /// private readonly Hashtable connectedClients = new Hashtable(); /// /// An event to hold the thread to wait for a new client /// private readonly ManualResetEvent resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); /// /// keeps track of the number of the connected clients /// private int clientCount; /// /// The socket of the server at which the clients connect /// private readonly Socket mainSocket = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp); /// /// The socket exception that informs that a client is disconnected /// private const int ClientDisconnectedErrorCode = 10054; /// /// The only instance of this class. /// private static readonly NetworkManager networkManagerInstance = new NetworkManager(); /// /// A delegate for the new client connected event. /// /// the sender object /// the event args public delegate void NewClientConnected(Object sender, SystemEventArgs e); /// /// A delegate for the position update message reception. /// /// the sender object /// the event args public delegate void PositionUpdateMessageRecieved(Object sender, PositionUpdateEventArgs e); /// /// The event which fires when a client sends a position message /// public PositionUpdateMessageRecieved PositionUpdateMessageEvent { get; set; } /// /// keeps track of the number of the connected clients /// public int ClientCount { get { return clientCount; } } /// /// A getter for this class instance. /// /// only instance. public static NetworkManager NetworkManagerInstance { get { return networkManagerInstance; } } private NetworkManager() {} /// Starts the game server and holds this thread alive /// public void StartServer() { //Bind the mainSocket to the server IP address and port mainSocket.Bind(new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, port)); //The server starts to listen on the binded socket with max connection queue //1024 mainSocket.Listen(1024); //Start accepting clients asynchronously mainSocket.BeginAccept(OnClientConnected, null); //Wait until there is a client wants to connect resetEvent.WaitOne(); } /// /// Receives connections of new clients and fire the NewClientConnected event /// private void OnClientConnected(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { Interlocked.Increment(ref clientCount); ClientInfo newClient = new ClientInfo { WorkerSocket = mainSocket.EndAccept(asyncResult), PlayerId = clientCount }; //Add the new client to the hashtable and increment the number of clients connectedClients.Add(newClient.PlayerId, newClient); //fire the new client event informing that a new client is connected to the server if (NewClientEvent != null) { NewClientEvent(this, System.EventArgs.Empty); } newClient.WorkerSocket.BeginReceive(newClient.Buffer, 0, BasePacket.GetMaxPacketSize(), SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(WaitForData), newClient); //Start accepting clients asynchronously again mainSocket.BeginAccept(OnClientConnected, null); } /// Waits for the upcoming messages from different clients and fires the proper event according to the packet type. /// /// private void WaitForData(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { ClientInfo sendingClient = null; try { //Take the client information from the asynchronous result resulting from the BeginReceive sendingClient = asyncResult.AsyncState as ClientInfo; // If client is disconnected, then throw a socket exception // with the correct error code. if (!IsConnected(sendingClient.WorkerSocket)) { throw new SocketException(ClientDisconnectedErrorCode); } //End the pending receive request sendingClient.WorkerSocket.EndReceive(asyncResult); //Fire the appropriate event FireMessageTypeEvent(sendingClient.ConvertBytesToPacket() as BasePacket); // Begin receiving data from this client sendingClient.WorkerSocket.BeginReceive(sendingClient.Buffer, 0, BasePacket.GetMaxPacketSize(), SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(WaitForData), sendingClient); } catch (SocketException e) { if (e.ErrorCode == ClientDisconnectedErrorCode) { // Close the socket. if (sendingClient.WorkerSocket != null) { sendingClient.WorkerSocket.Close(); sendingClient.WorkerSocket = null; } // Remove it from the hash table. connectedClients.Remove(sendingClient.PlayerId); if (ClientDisconnectedEvent != null) { ClientDisconnectedEvent(this, new ClientDisconnectedEventArgs(sendingClient.PlayerId)); } } } catch (Exception e) { // Begin receiving data from this client sendingClient.WorkerSocket.BeginReceive(sendingClient.Buffer, 0, BasePacket.GetMaxPacketSize(), SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(WaitForData), sendingClient); } } /// /// Broadcasts the input message to all the connected clients /// /// public void BroadcastMessage(BasePacket message) { byte[] bytes = message.ConvertToBytes(); foreach (ClientInfo client in connectedClients.Values) { client.WorkerSocket.BeginSend(bytes, 0, bytes.Length, SocketFlags.None, SendAsync, client); } } /// /// Sends the input message to the client specified by his ID. /// /// /// The message to be sent. /// The id of the client to receive the message. public void SendToClient(BasePacket message, int id) { byte[] bytes = message.ConvertToBytes(); (connectedClients[id] as ClientInfo).WorkerSocket.BeginSend(bytes, 0, bytes.Length, SocketFlags.None, SendAsync, connectedClients[id]); } private void SendAsync(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { ClientInfo currentClient = (ClientInfo)asyncResult.AsyncState; currentClient.WorkerSocket.EndSend(asyncResult); } /// Fires the event depending on the type of received packet /// /// The received packet. void FireMessageTypeEvent(BasePacket packet) { switch (packet.MessageType) { case MessageType.PositionUpdateMessage: if (PositionUpdateMessageEvent != null) { PositionUpdateMessageEvent(this, new PositionUpdateEventArgs(packet as PositionUpdatePacket)); } break; } } } The events fired are handled in a different class, here are the event handling code for the PositionUpdateMessage (Other handlers are irrelevant): private readonly Hashtable onlinePlayers = new Hashtable(); /// /// Constructor that creates a new instance of the GameController class. /// private GameController() { //Start the server server = new Thread(networkManager.StartServer); server.Start(); //Create an event handler for the NewClientEvent of networkManager networkManager.PositionUpdateMessageEvent += OnPositionUpdateMessageReceived; } /// /// this event handler is called when a client asks for movement. /// private void OnPositionUpdateMessageReceived(object sender, PositionUpdateEventArgs e) { Point currentLocation = ((PlayerData)onlinePlayers[e.PositionUpdatePacket.PlayerId]).Position; Point locationRequested = e.PositionUpdatePacket.Position; ((PlayerData)onlinePlayers[e.PositionUpdatePacket.PlayerId]).Position = locationRequested; // Broadcast the new position networkManager.BroadcastMessage(new PositionUpdatePacket { Position = locationRequested, PlayerId = e.PositionUpdatePacket.PlayerId }); }

    Read the article

  • .Net 3.5 Asynchronous Socket Server Performance Problem

    - by iBrAaAa
    I'm developing an Asynchronous Game Server using .Net Socket Asynchronous Model( BeginAccept/EndAccept...etc.) The problem I'm facing is described like that: When I have only one client connected, the server response time is very fast but once a second client connects, the server response time increases too much. I've measured the time from a client sends a message to the server until it gets the reply in both cases. I found that the average time in case of one client is about 17ms and in case of 2 clients about 280ms!!! What I really see is that: When 2 clients are connected and only one of them is moving(i.e. requesting service from the server) it is equivalently equal to the case when only one client is connected(i.e. fast response). However, when the 2 clients move at the same time(i.e. requests service from the server at the same time) their motion becomes very slow (as if the server replies each one of them in order i.e. not simultaneously). Basically, what I am doing is that: When a client requests a permission for motion from the server and the server grants him the request, the server then broadcasts the new position of the client to all the players. So if two clients are moving in the same time, the server is eventually trying to broadcast to both clients the new position of each of them at the same time. EX: Client1 asks to go to position (2,2) Client2 asks to go to position (5,5) Server sends to each of Client1 & Client2 the same two messages: message1: "Client1 at (2,2)" message2: "Client2 at (5,5)" I believe that the problem comes from the fact that Socket class is thread safe according MSDN documentation http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.sockets.socket.aspx. (NOT SURE THAT IT IS THE PROBLEM) Below is the code for the server: /// /// This class is responsible for handling packet receiving and sending /// public class NetworkManager { /// /// An integer to hold the server port number to be used for the connections. Its default value is 5000. /// private readonly int port = 5000; /// /// hashtable contain all the clients connected to the server. /// key: player Id /// value: socket /// private readonly Hashtable connectedClients = new Hashtable(); /// /// An event to hold the thread to wait for a new client /// private readonly ManualResetEvent resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); /// /// keeps track of the number of the connected clients /// private int clientCount; /// /// The socket of the server at which the clients connect /// private readonly Socket mainSocket = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp); /// /// The socket exception that informs that a client is disconnected /// private const int ClientDisconnectedErrorCode = 10054; /// /// The only instance of this class. /// private static readonly NetworkManager networkManagerInstance = new NetworkManager(); /// /// A delegate for the new client connected event. /// /// the sender object /// the event args public delegate void NewClientConnected(Object sender, SystemEventArgs e); /// /// A delegate for the position update message reception. /// /// the sender object /// the event args public delegate void PositionUpdateMessageRecieved(Object sender, PositionUpdateEventArgs e); /// /// The event which fires when a client sends a position message /// public PositionUpdateMessageRecieved PositionUpdateMessageEvent { get; set; } /// /// keeps track of the number of the connected clients /// public int ClientCount { get { return clientCount; } } /// /// A getter for this class instance. /// /// only instance. public static NetworkManager NetworkManagerInstance { get { return networkManagerInstance; } } private NetworkManager() {} /// Starts the game server and holds this thread alive /// public void StartServer() { //Bind the mainSocket to the server IP address and port mainSocket.Bind(new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, port)); //The server starts to listen on the binded socket with max connection queue //1024 mainSocket.Listen(1024); //Start accepting clients asynchronously mainSocket.BeginAccept(OnClientConnected, null); //Wait until there is a client wants to connect resetEvent.WaitOne(); } /// /// Receives connections of new clients and fire the NewClientConnected event /// private void OnClientConnected(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { Interlocked.Increment(ref clientCount); ClientInfo newClient = new ClientInfo { WorkerSocket = mainSocket.EndAccept(asyncResult), PlayerId = clientCount }; //Add the new client to the hashtable and increment the number of clients connectedClients.Add(newClient.PlayerId, newClient); //fire the new client event informing that a new client is connected to the server if (NewClientEvent != null) { NewClientEvent(this, System.EventArgs.Empty); } newClient.WorkerSocket.BeginReceive(newClient.Buffer, 0, BasePacket.GetMaxPacketSize(), SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(WaitForData), newClient); //Start accepting clients asynchronously again mainSocket.BeginAccept(OnClientConnected, null); } /// Waits for the upcoming messages from different clients and fires the proper event according to the packet type. /// /// private void WaitForData(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { ClientInfo sendingClient = null; try { //Take the client information from the asynchronous result resulting from the BeginReceive sendingClient = asyncResult.AsyncState as ClientInfo; // If client is disconnected, then throw a socket exception // with the correct error code. if (!IsConnected(sendingClient.WorkerSocket)) { throw new SocketException(ClientDisconnectedErrorCode); } //End the pending receive request sendingClient.WorkerSocket.EndReceive(asyncResult); //Fire the appropriate event FireMessageTypeEvent(sendingClient.ConvertBytesToPacket() as BasePacket); // Begin receiving data from this client sendingClient.WorkerSocket.BeginReceive(sendingClient.Buffer, 0, BasePacket.GetMaxPacketSize(), SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(WaitForData), sendingClient); } catch (SocketException e) { if (e.ErrorCode == ClientDisconnectedErrorCode) { // Close the socket. if (sendingClient.WorkerSocket != null) { sendingClient.WorkerSocket.Close(); sendingClient.WorkerSocket = null; } // Remove it from the hash table. connectedClients.Remove(sendingClient.PlayerId); if (ClientDisconnectedEvent != null) { ClientDisconnectedEvent(this, new ClientDisconnectedEventArgs(sendingClient.PlayerId)); } } } catch (Exception e) { // Begin receiving data from this client sendingClient.WorkerSocket.BeginReceive(sendingClient.Buffer, 0, BasePacket.GetMaxPacketSize(), SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(WaitForData), sendingClient); } } /// /// Broadcasts the input message to all the connected clients /// /// public void BroadcastMessage(BasePacket message) { byte[] bytes = message.ConvertToBytes(); foreach (ClientInfo client in connectedClients.Values) { client.WorkerSocket.BeginSend(bytes, 0, bytes.Length, SocketFlags.None, SendAsync, client); } } /// /// Sends the input message to the client specified by his ID. /// /// /// The message to be sent. /// The id of the client to receive the message. public void SendToClient(BasePacket message, int id) { byte[] bytes = message.ConvertToBytes(); (connectedClients[id] as ClientInfo).WorkerSocket.BeginSend(bytes, 0, bytes.Length, SocketFlags.None, SendAsync, connectedClients[id]); } private void SendAsync(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { ClientInfo currentClient = (ClientInfo)asyncResult.AsyncState; currentClient.WorkerSocket.EndSend(asyncResult); } /// Fires the event depending on the type of received packet /// /// The received packet. void FireMessageTypeEvent(BasePacket packet) { switch (packet.MessageType) { case MessageType.PositionUpdateMessage: if (PositionUpdateMessageEvent != null) { PositionUpdateMessageEvent(this, new PositionUpdateEventArgs(packet as PositionUpdatePacket)); } break; } } } The events fired are handled in a different class, here are the event handling code for the PositionUpdateMessage (Other handlers are irrelevant): private readonly Hashtable onlinePlayers = new Hashtable(); /// /// Constructor that creates a new instance of the GameController class. /// private GameController() { //Start the server server = new Thread(networkManager.StartServer); server.Start(); //Create an event handler for the NewClientEvent of networkManager networkManager.PositionUpdateMessageEvent += OnPositionUpdateMessageReceived; } /// /// this event handler is called when a client asks for movement. /// private void OnPositionUpdateMessageReceived(object sender, PositionUpdateEventArgs e) { Point currentLocation = ((PlayerData)onlinePlayers[e.PositionUpdatePacket.PlayerId]).Position; Point locationRequested = e.PositionUpdatePacket.Position; ((PlayerData)onlinePlayers[e.PositionUpdatePacket.PlayerId]).Position = locationRequested; // Broadcast the new position networkManager.BroadcastMessage(new PositionUpdatePacket { Position = locationRequested, PlayerId = e.PositionUpdatePacket.PlayerId }); }

    Read the article

  • c# Named Pipe Asynchronous Peeking

    - by KJ Tsanaktsidis
    Hey all, I need to find a way to be notified when a System.IO.Pipe.NamedPipeServerStream opened in asynchronous mode has more data available for reading on it- a WaitHandle would be ideal. I cannot simply use BeginRead() to obtain such a handle because it's possible that i might be signaled by another thread which wants to write to the pipe- so I have to release the lock on the pipe and wait for the write to be complete, and NamedPipeServerStream doesnt have a CancelAsync method. I also tried calling BeginRead(), then calling the win32 function CancelIO on the pipe if the thread gets signaled, but I don't think this is an ideal solution because if CancelIO is called just as data is arriving and being processed, it will be dropped- I still wish to keep this data, but process it at a later time, after the write. I suspect the win32 function PeekNamedPipe might be useful but i'd like to avoid having to continuously poll for new data with it. In the likley event that the above text is a bit unclear, here's roughly what i'd like to be able to do... NamedPipeServerStream pipe; ManualResetEvent WriteFlag; //initialise pipe lock (pipe) { //I wish this method existed WaitHandle NewDataHandle = pipe.GetDataAvailableWaithandle(); Waithandle[] BreakConditions = new Waithandle[2]; BreakConditions[0] = NewDataHandle; BreakConditions[1] = WriteFlag; int breakcode = WaitHandle.WaitAny(BreakConditions); switch (breakcode) { case 0: //do a read on the pipe break; case 1: //break so that we release the lock on the pipe break; } }

    Read the article

  • C# Execute Method (with Parameters) with ThreadPool

    - by washtik
    We have the following piece of code (idea for this code was found on this website) which will spawn new threads for the method "Do_SomeWork()". This enables us to run the method multiple times asynchronously. The code is: var numThreads = 20; var toProcess = numThreads; var resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); for (var i = 0; i < numThreads; i++) { new Thread(delegate() { Do_SomeWork(Parameter1, Parameter2, Parameter3); if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref toProcess) == 0) resetEvent.Set(); }).Start(); } resetEvent.WaitOne(); However we would like to make use of ThreadPool rather than create our own new threads which can be detrimental to performance. The question is how can we modify the above code to make use of ThreadPool keeping in mind that the method "Do_SomeWork" takes multiple parameters and also has a return type (i.e. method is not void). Also, this is C# 2.0.

    Read the article

  • C# Process Binary File, Multi-Thread Processing

    - by washtik
    I have the following code that processes a binary file. I want to split the processing workload by using threads and assigning each line of the binary file to threads in the ThreadPool. Processing time for each line is only small but when dealing with files that might contain hundreds of lines, it makes sense to split the workload. My question is regarding the BinaryReader and thread safety. First of all, is what I am doing below acceptable. I have a feeling it would be better to pass only the binary for each line to the PROCESS_Binary_Return_lineData method. Please note the code below is conceptual. I looking for a but of guidance on this as my knowledge of multi-threading is in its infancy. Perhaps there is a better way to achieve the same result, i.e. split processing of each binary line. var dic = new Dictionary<DateTime, Data>(); var resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); using (var b = new BinaryReader(File.Open(Constants.dataFile, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.Read))) { var lByte = b.BaseStream.Length; var toProcess = 0; while (lByte >= DATALENGTH) { b.BaseStream.Position = lByte; lByte = lByte - AB_DATALENGTH; ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate { Interlocked.Increment(ref toProcess); var lineData = PROCESS_Binary_Return_lineData(b); lock(dic) { if (!dic.ContainsKey(lineData.DateTime)) { dic.Add(lineData.DateTime, lineData); } } if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref toProcess) == 0) resetEvent.Set(); }, null); } } resetEvent.WaitOne();

    Read the article

  • Does Interlocked guarantee visibility to other threads in C# or do I still have to use volatile?

    - by Lirik
    I've been reading the answer to a similar question, but I'm still a little confused... Abel had a great answer, but this is the part that I'm unsure about: ...declaring a variable volatile makes it volatile for every single access. It is impossible to force this behavior any other way, hence volatile cannot be replaced with Interlocked. This is needed in scenarios where other libraries, interfaces or hardware can access your variable and update it anytime, or need the most recent version. Does Interlocked guarantee visibility of the atomic operation to all threads, or do I still have to use the volatile keyword on the value in order to guarantee visibility of the change? Here is my example: public class CountDownLatch { private volatile int m_remain; // <--- do I need the volatile keyword there since I'm using Interlocked? private EventWaitHandle m_event; public CountDownLatch (int count) { Reset(count); } public void Reset(int count) { if (count < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); m_remain = count; m_event = new ManualResetEvent(false); if (m_remain == 0) { m_event.Set(); } } public void Signal() { // The last thread to signal also sets the event. if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_remain) == 0) m_event.Set(); } public void Wait() { m_event.WaitOne(); } }

    Read the article

  • Get Asynchronous HttpResponse through Silverlight (F#)

    - by jack2010
    I am a newbie with F# and SL and playing with getting asynchronous HttpResponse through Silverlight. The following is the F# code pieces, which is tested on VS2010 and Window7 and works well, but the improvement is necessary. Any advices and discussion, especially the callback part, are welcome and great thanks. module JSONExample open System open System.IO open System.Net open System.Text open System.Web open System.Security.Authentication open System.Runtime.Serialization [<DataContract>] type Result<'TResult> = { [<field: DataMember(Name="code") >] Code:string [<field: DataMember(Name="result") >] Result:'TResult array [<field: DataMember(Name="message") >] Message:string } // The elements in the list [<DataContract>] type ChemicalElement = { [<field: DataMember(Name="name") >] Name:string [<field: DataMember(Name="boiling_point") >] BoilingPoint:string [<field: DataMember(Name="atomic_mass") >] AtomicMass:string } //http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2007/10/11/introducing-f-asynchronous-workflows.aspx //http://lorgonblog.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!701679AD17B6D310!194.entry type System.Net.HttpWebRequest with member x.GetResponseAsync() = Async.FromBeginEnd(x.BeginGetResponse, x.EndGetResponse) type RequestState () = let mutable request : WebRequest = null let mutable response : WebResponse = null let mutable responseStream : Stream = null member this.Request with get() = request and set v = request <- v member this.Response with get() = response and set v = response <- v member this.ResponseStream with get() = responseStream and set v = responseStream <- v let allDone = new System.Threading.ManualResetEvent(false) let getHttpWebRequest (query:string) = let query = query.Replace("'","\"") let queryUrl = sprintf "http://api.freebase.com/api/service/mqlread?query=%s" "{\"query\":"+query+"}" let request : HttpWebRequest = downcast WebRequest.Create(queryUrl) request.Method <- "GET" request.ContentType <- "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" request let GetAsynResp (request : HttpWebRequest) (callback: AsyncCallback) = let myRequestState = new RequestState() myRequestState.Request <- request let asyncResult = request.BeginGetResponse(callback, myRequestState) () // easy way to get it to run syncrnously w/ the asynch methods let GetSynResp (request : HttpWebRequest) : HttpWebResponse = let response = request.GetResponseAsync() |> Async.RunSynchronously downcast response let RespCallback (finish: Stream -> _) (asynchronousResult : IAsyncResult) = try let myRequestState : RequestState = downcast asynchronousResult.AsyncState let myWebRequest1 : WebRequest = myRequestState.Request myRequestState.Response <- myWebRequest1.EndGetResponse(asynchronousResult) let responseStream = myRequestState.Response.GetResponseStream() myRequestState.ResponseStream <- responseStream finish responseStream myRequestState.Response.Close() () with | :? WebException as e -> printfn "WebException raised!" printfn "\n%s" e.Message printfn "\n%s" (e.Status.ToString()) () | _ as e -> printfn "Exception raised!" printfn "Source : %s" e.Source printfn "Message : %s" e.Message () let printResults (stream: Stream)= let result = try use reader = new StreamReader(stream) reader.ReadToEnd(); finally () let data = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(result); let stream = new MemoryStream() stream.Write(data, 0, data.Length); stream.Position <- 0L let JsonSerializer = Json.DataContractJsonSerializer(typeof<Result<ChemicalElement>>) let result = JsonSerializer.ReadObject(stream) :?> Result<ChemicalElement> if result.Code<>"/api/status/ok" then raise (InvalidOperationException(result.Message)) else result.Result |> Array.iter(fun element->printfn "%A" element) let test = // Call Query (w/ generics telling it you wand an array of ChemicalElement back, the query string is wackyJSON too –I didn’t build it don’t ask me! let request = getHttpWebRequest "[{'type':'/chemistry/chemical_element','name':null,'boiling_point':null,'atomic_mass':null}]" //let response = GetSynResp request let response = GetAsynResp request (AsyncCallback (RespCallback printResults)) () ignore(test) System.Console.ReadLine() |> ignore

    Read the article

  • Implementing an async "read all currently available data from stream" operation

    - by Jon
    I recently provided an answer to this question: C# - Realtime console output redirection. As often happens, explaining stuff (here "stuff" was how I tackled a similar problem) leads you to greater understanding and/or, as is the case here, "oops" moments. I realized that my solution, as implemented, has a bug. The bug has little practical importance, but it has an extremely large importance to me as a developer: I can't rest easy knowing that my code has the potential to blow up. Squashing the bug is the purpose of this question. I apologize for the long intro, so let's get dirty. I wanted to build a class that allows me to receive input from a console's standard output Stream. Console output streams are of type FileStream; the implementation can cast to that, if needed. There is also an associated StreamReader already present to leverage. There is only one thing I need to implement in this class to achieve my desired functionality: an async "read all the data available this moment" operation. Reading to the end of the stream is not viable because the stream will not end unless the process closes the console output handle, and it will not do that because it is interactive and expecting input before continuing. I will be using that hypothetical async operation to implement event-based notification, which will be more convenient for my callers. The public interface of the class is this: public class ConsoleAutomator { public event EventHandler<ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs> StandardOutputRead; public void StartSendingEvents(); public void StopSendingEvents(); } StartSendingEvents and StopSendingEvents do what they advertise; for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that events are always being sent without loss of generality. The class uses these two fields internally: protected readonly StringBuilder inputAccumulator = new StringBuilder(); protected readonly byte[] buffer = new byte[256]; The functionality of the class is implemented in the methods below. To get the ball rolling: public void StartSendingEvents(); { this.stopAutomation = false; this.BeginReadAsync(); } To read data out of the Stream without blocking, and also without requiring a carriage return char, BeginRead is called: protected void BeginReadAsync() { if (!this.stopAutomation) { this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.BeginRead( this.buffer, 0, this.buffer.Length, this.ReadHappened, null); } } The challenging part: BeginRead requires using a buffer. This means that when reading from the stream, it is possible that the bytes available to read ("incoming chunk") are larger than the buffer. Remember that the goal here is to read all of the chunk and call event subscribers exactly once for each chunk. To this end, if the buffer is full after EndRead, we don't send its contents to subscribers immediately but instead append them to a StringBuilder. The contents of the StringBuilder are only sent back whenever there is no more to read from the stream. private void ReadHappened(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { var bytesRead = this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.EndRead(asyncResult); if (bytesRead == 0) { this.OnAutomationStopped(); return; } var input = this.StandardOutput.CurrentEncoding.GetString( this.buffer, 0, bytesRead); this.inputAccumulator.Append(input); if (bytesRead < this.buffer.Length) { this.OnInputRead(); // only send back if we 're sure we got it all } this.BeginReadAsync(); // continue "looping" with BeginRead } After any read which is not enough to fill the buffer (in which case we know that there was no more data to be read during the last read operation), all accumulated data is sent to the subscribers: private void OnInputRead() { var handler = this.StandardOutputRead; if (handler == null) { return; } handler(this, new ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs(this.inputAccumulator.ToString())); this.inputAccumulator.Clear(); } (I know that as long as there are no subscribers the data gets accumulated forever. This is a deliberate decision). The good This scheme works almost perfectly: Async functionality without spawning any threads Very convenient to the calling code (just subscribe to an event) Never more than one event for each time data is available to be read Is almost agnostic to the buffer size The bad That last almost is a very big one. Consider what happens when there is an incoming chunk with length exactly equal to the size of the buffer. The chunk will be read and buffered, but the event will not be triggered. This will be followed up by a BeginRead that expects to find more data belonging to the current chunk in order to send it back all in one piece, but... there will be no more data in the stream. In fact, as long as data is put into the stream in chunks with length exactly equal to the buffer size, the data will be buffered and the event will never be triggered. This scenario may be highly unlikely to occur in practice, especially since we can pick any number for the buffer size, but the problem is there. Solution? Unfortunately, after checking the available methods on FileStream and StreamReader, I can't find anything which lets me peek into the stream while also allowing async methods to be used on it. One "solution" would be to have a thread wait on a ManualResetEvent after the "buffer filled" condition is detected. If the event is not signaled (by the async callback) in a small amount of time, then more data from the stream will not be forthcoming and the data accumulated so far should be sent to subscribers. However, this introduces the need for another thread, requires thread synchronization, and is plain inelegant. Specifying a timeout for BeginRead would also suffice (call back into my code every now and then so I can check if there's data to be sent back; most of the time there will not be anything to do, so I expect the performance hit to be negligible). But it looks like timeouts are not supported in FileStream. Since I imagine that async calls with timeouts are an option in bare Win32, another approach might be to PInvoke the hell out of the problem. But this is also undesirable as it will introduce complexity and simply be a pain to code. Is there an elegant way to get around the problem? Thanks for being patient enough to read all of this. Update: I definitely did not communicate the scenario well in my initial writeup. I have since revised the writeup quite a bit, but to be extra sure: The question is about how to implement an async "read all the data available this moment" operation. My apologies to the people who took the time to read and answer without me making my intent clear enough.

    Read the article

  • Implementing a robust async stream reader

    - by Jon
    I recently provided an answer to this question: C# - Realtime console output redirection. As often happens, explaining stuff (here "stuff" was how I tackled a similar problem) leads you to greater understanding and/or, as is the case here, "oops" moments. I realized that my solution, as implemented, has a bug. The bug has little practical importance, but it has an extremely large importance to me as a developer: I can't rest easy knowing that my code has the potential to blow up. Squashing the bug is the purpose of this question. I apologize for the long intro, so let's get dirty. I wanted to build a class that allows me to receive input from a Stream in an event-based manner. The stream, in my scenario, is guaranteed to be a FileStream and there is also an associated StreamReader already present to leverage. The public interface of the class is this: public class MyStreamManager { public event EventHandler<ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs> StandardOutputRead; public void StartSendingEvents(); public void StopSendingEvents(); } Obviously this specific scenario has to do with a console's standard output, but that is a detail and does not play an important role. StartSendingEvents and StopSendingEvents do what they advertise; for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that events are always being sent without loss of generality. The class uses these two fields internally: protected readonly StringBuilder inputAccumulator = new StringBuilder(); protected readonly byte[] buffer = new byte[256]; The functionality of the class is implemented in the methods below. To get the ball rolling: public void StartSendingEvents(); { this.stopAutomation = false; this.BeginReadAsync(); } To read data out of the Stream without blocking, and also without requiring a carriage return char, BeginRead is called: protected void BeginReadAsync() { if (!this.stopAutomation) { this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.BeginRead( this.buffer, 0, this.buffer.Length, this.ReadHappened, null); } } The challenging part: BeginRead requires using a buffer. This means that when reading from the stream, it is possible that the bytes available to read ("incoming chunk") are larger than the buffer. Since we are only handing off data from the stream to a consumer, and that consumer may well have inside knowledge about the size and/or format of these chunks, I want to call event subscribers exactly once for each chunk. Otherwise the abstraction breaks down and the subscribers have to buffer the incoming data and reconstruct the chunks themselves using said knowledge. This is much less convenient to the calling code, and detracts from the usefulness of my class. To this end, if the buffer is full after EndRead, we don't send its contents to subscribers immediately but instead append them to a StringBuilder. The contents of the StringBuilder are only sent back whenever there is no more to read from the stream (thus preserving the chunks). private void ReadHappened(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { var bytesRead = this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.EndRead(asyncResult); if (bytesRead == 0) { this.OnAutomationStopped(); return; } var input = this.StandardOutput.CurrentEncoding.GetString( this.buffer, 0, bytesRead); this.inputAccumulator.Append(input); if (bytesRead < this.buffer.Length) { this.OnInputRead(); // only send back if we 're sure we got it all } this.BeginReadAsync(); // continue "looping" with BeginRead } After any read which is not enough to fill the buffer, all accumulated data is sent to the subscribers: private void OnInputRead() { var handler = this.StandardOutputRead; if (handler == null) { return; } handler(this, new ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs(this.inputAccumulator.ToString())); this.inputAccumulator.Clear(); } (I know that as long as there are no subscribers the data gets accumulated forever. This is a deliberate decision). The good This scheme works almost perfectly: Async functionality without spawning any threads Very convenient to the calling code (just subscribe to an event) Maintains the "chunkiness" of the data; this allows the calling code to use inside knowledge of the data without doing any extra work Is almost agnostic to the buffer size (it will work correctly with any size buffer irrespective of the data being read) The bad That last almost is a very big one. Consider what happens when there is an incoming chunk with length exactly equal to the size of the buffer. The chunk will be read and buffered, but the event will not be triggered. This will be followed up by a BeginRead that expects to find more data belonging to the current chunk in order to send it back all in one piece, but... there will be no more data in the stream. In fact, as long as data is put into the stream in chunks with length exactly equal to the buffer size, the data will be buffered and the event will never be triggered. This scenario may be highly unlikely to occur in practice, especially since we can pick any number for the buffer size, but the problem is there. Solution? Unfortunately, after checking the available methods on FileStream and StreamReader, I can't find anything which lets me peek into the stream while also allowing async methods to be used on it. One "solution" would be to have a thread wait on a ManualResetEvent after the "buffer filled" condition is detected. If the event is not signaled (by the async callback) in a small amount of time, then more data from the stream will not be forthcoming and the data accumulated so far should be sent to subscribers. However, this introduces the need for another thread, requires thread synchronization, and is plain inelegant. Specifying a timeout for BeginRead would also suffice (call back into my code every now and then so I can check if there's data to be sent back; most of the time there will not be anything to do, so I expect the performance hit to be negligible). But it looks like timeouts are not supported in FileStream. Since I imagine that async calls with timeouts are an option in bare Win32, another approach might be to PInvoke the hell out of the problem. But this is also undesirable as it will introduce complexity and simply be a pain to code. Is there an elegant way to get around the problem? Thanks for being patient enough to read all of this.

    Read the article

  • Implementing a robust async stream reader for a console

    - by Jon
    I recently provided an answer to this question: C# - Realtime console output redirection. As often happens, explaining stuff (here "stuff" was how I tackled a similar problem) leads you to greater understanding and/or, as is the case here, "oops" moments. I realized that my solution, as implemented, has a bug. The bug has little practical importance, but it has an extremely large importance to me as a developer: I can't rest easy knowing that my code has the potential to blow up. Squashing the bug is the purpose of this question. I apologize for the long intro, so let's get dirty. I wanted to build a class that allows me to receive input from a Stream in an event-based manner. The stream, in my scenario, is guaranteed to be a FileStream and there is also an associated StreamReader already present to leverage. The public interface of the class is this: public class MyStreamManager { public event EventHandler<ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs> StandardOutputRead; public void StartSendingEvents(); public void StopSendingEvents(); } Obviously this specific scenario has to do with a console's standard output. StartSendingEvents and StopSendingEvents do what they advertise; for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that events are always being sent without loss of generality. The class uses these two fields internally: protected readonly StringBuilder inputAccumulator = new StringBuilder(); protected readonly byte[] buffer = new byte[256]; The functionality of the class is implemented in the methods below. To get the ball rolling: public void StartSendingEvents(); { this.stopAutomation = false; this.BeginReadAsync(); } To read data out of the Stream without blocking, and also without requiring a carriage return char, BeginRead is called: protected void BeginReadAsync() { if (!this.stopAutomation) { this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.BeginRead( this.buffer, 0, this.buffer.Length, this.ReadHappened, null); } } The challenging part: BeginRead requires using a buffer. This means that when reading from the stream, it is possible that the bytes available to read ("incoming chunk") are larger than the buffer. Since we are only handing off data from the stream to a consumer, and that consumer may well have inside knowledge about the size and/or format of these chunks, I want to call event subscribers exactly once for each chunk. Otherwise the abstraction breaks down and the subscribers have to buffer the incoming data and reconstruct the chunks themselves using said knowledge. This is much less convenient to the calling code, and detracts from the usefulness of my class. Edit: There are comments below correctly stating that since the data is coming from a stream, there is absolutely nothing that the receiver can infer about the structure of the data unless it is fully prepared to parse it. What I am trying to do here is leverage the "flush the output" "structure" that the owner of the console imparts while writing on it. I am prepared to assume (better: allow my caller to have the option to assume) that the OS will pass me the data written between two flushes of the stream in exactly one piece. To this end, if the buffer is full after EndRead, we don't send its contents to subscribers immediately but instead append them to a StringBuilder. The contents of the StringBuilder are only sent back whenever there is no more to read from the stream (thus preserving the chunks). private void ReadHappened(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { var bytesRead = this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.EndRead(asyncResult); if (bytesRead == 0) { this.OnAutomationStopped(); return; } var input = this.StandardOutput.CurrentEncoding.GetString( this.buffer, 0, bytesRead); this.inputAccumulator.Append(input); if (bytesRead < this.buffer.Length) { this.OnInputRead(); // only send back if we 're sure we got it all } this.BeginReadAsync(); // continue "looping" with BeginRead } After any read which is not enough to fill the buffer, all accumulated data is sent to the subscribers: private void OnInputRead() { var handler = this.StandardOutputRead; if (handler == null) { return; } handler(this, new ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs(this.inputAccumulator.ToString())); this.inputAccumulator.Clear(); } (I know that as long as there are no subscribers the data gets accumulated forever. This is a deliberate decision). The good This scheme works almost perfectly: Async functionality without spawning any threads Very convenient to the calling code (just subscribe to an event) Maintains the "chunkiness" of the data; this allows the calling code to use inside knowledge of the data without doing any extra work Is almost agnostic to the buffer size (it will work correctly with any size buffer irrespective of the data being read) The bad That last almost is a very big one. Consider what happens when there is an incoming chunk with length exactly equal to the size of the buffer. The chunk will be read and buffered, but the event will not be triggered. This will be followed up by a BeginRead that expects to find more data belonging to the current chunk in order to send it back all in one piece, but... there will be no more data in the stream. In fact, as long as data is put into the stream in chunks with length exactly equal to the buffer size, the data will be buffered and the event will never be triggered. This scenario may be highly unlikely to occur in practice, especially since we can pick any number for the buffer size, but the problem is there. Solution? Unfortunately, after checking the available methods on FileStream and StreamReader, I can't find anything which lets me peek into the stream while also allowing async methods to be used on it. One "solution" would be to have a thread wait on a ManualResetEvent after the "buffer filled" condition is detected. If the event is not signaled (by the async callback) in a small amount of time, then more data from the stream will not be forthcoming and the data accumulated so far should be sent to subscribers. However, this introduces the need for another thread, requires thread synchronization, and is plain inelegant. Specifying a timeout for BeginRead would also suffice (call back into my code every now and then so I can check if there's data to be sent back; most of the time there will not be anything to do, so I expect the performance hit to be negligible). But it looks like timeouts are not supported in FileStream. Since I imagine that async calls with timeouts are an option in bare Win32, another approach might be to PInvoke the hell out of the problem. But this is also undesirable as it will introduce complexity and simply be a pain to code. Is there an elegant way to get around the problem? Thanks for being patient enough to read all of this.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2