is there any common pattern to create singleton objects for each thread?
When I send a sharedInstance message to the singleton class, I expect an instance that is shared only for the currentThread.
Thanks
EDIT: I found this post very useful http://ddeville.me/2011/02/creating-shared-instances-of-non-thread-safe-classes/
A singleton and one object per thread requirement is an contradiction.
You probably want a thread local object. That is one object specific for each thread.
Thread local objects can be implemented by using [NSThread threadDictionary].
There you could store such an object as NSValue which can hold even a pointer.
Related
Java docs state following regarding synchronization of constructor:
Note that constructors cannot be synchronized — using the synchronized keyword with a constructor is a syntax error. Synchronizing constructors doesn't make sense, because only the thread that creates an object should have access to it while it is being constructed.
Warning: When constructing an object that will be shared between
threads, be very careful that a reference to the object does not
"leak" prematurely. For example, suppose you want to maintain a List
called instances containing every instance of class. You might be
tempted to add the following line to your constructor:
instances.add(this); But then other threads can use instances to
access the object before construction of the object is complete.
I am not able to understand this whole block. First it states that only the thread that creates an object has access to constructor. Then it warns of premature leak which may cause issues if other threads access the object before construction is complete. Are not these two things in contradiction. If only the creating thread can access the constructor then how can other threads prematurely access the object as it can only be accessed once contructor has run fully?
Any input would be of great help.
Imagine two threads that both have access to a global List (called "instances") holding instances of the class in question. Thread 1 continuously cycles through the list and does something with each instance. Thread 2 goes its own merry way, and occasionally constructs a new instance of the class. If the class would add itself to the List in its constructor (using instances.add(this)) Thread 1 would immediately get access to the instance and could do things with it before it is fully constructed, resulting in unpredictable behavior.
There may be a misunderstanding of the word "should". You wrote: "First it states that only the thread that creates an object has access to constructor. " However, the Java docs say: "only the thread that creates an object should have access to it while it is being constructed", which means that you should take care that only one thread has access to the object while it is being constructed.
I have a unit with an initialization and finalization section. This unit contains a complex object which is instantiated in the initialization and destroyed in the finalization. However, this object also contains an ADO Connection. That makes it an issue when using this across threads, because ADO is COM, and needs to be initialized for every thread.
This is how I currently handle this global object instance:
uses
ActiveX;
...
initialization
CoInitialize(nil);
_MyObject:= TMyObject.Create;
finalization
_MyObject.Free;
CoUninitialize;
end.
This only works on the main thread. Any other thread wouldn't be able to access it, and will return an exception CoInitialize has not been called.
How do I get around this to make this unit thread-safe? I would need a way to hook every creation/destruction of any thread created, and each thread would need to refer to a different instance of this object. But how to go about doing so?
Well, as you already say yourself, each thread needs to call CoInitialize separately. And in addition, each thread needs to have its own ADOConnection too.
I think you need to leave the idea of using the single global object/connection from that unit. Just repeat that object creation and destruction in each thread. When the thread types are different, then you could design a base thread class on top of them. If the object is too big (has overhead with regard to the thread) or does not 'fit' completely in the thread, then split the object design.
For now, your question sounds like just wanting to keep convenience, but if it is really necessary to centralize the ADO connection involvement, then maybe you could implement multi-cast events for the connection events of both main thread and the other threads. Logging in should not be a problem for successive connections: just store the login values and feed them to the threads.
While another design might be a better solution, you can declare _MyObject as threadvar to have a separate instance for each thread. In addition you can move the CoInitialize/CoUnitialize into the constructor/destructor of TMyObject.
I cannot give advice on when to create and free these instances as I have no idea how your threads are created and freed.
I am playing around with threads. I have a question and I think its a very basic one:
I have a class:
Class Message {
public WriteMsg(string msg)
{
Console.Writeline(msg);
}
}
I create an object of this class
Message msg = new Message();
Now I create ten threads and pass this message object to the function executed by the ten threads. Each will pass its thread index to the writemsg , which will be written out to stdout. I wrote and tested the application and its writing thread index 1 through 10.
As you can see I have not implemented no kind of synchronization. If the class is doing just the functionality mentioned above, do I need a lock mechanism when accessing the object in the threads ?
You need synchronization among threads if they are working working with shared variables.
In your simple example there is no shared variable. So no synch is needed
It depends on what you're doing if it's methods that modify or read from non-atomic objects than yes. For your case it's not necessary.
I always had this specific scenario worry me for eons. Let's say my class looks like this
public class Person {
public Address Address{get;set;}
public string someMethod()
{}
}
My question is, I was told by my fellow developers that the Address propery of type Address, is not thread safe.
From a web request perspective, every request is run on a separate thread and every time
the thread processes the following line in my business object or code behind, example
var p = new Person();
it creates a new instance of Person object on heap and so the instance is accessed by the requesting thread, unless and otherwise I spawn multiple threads in my application.
If I am wrong, please explain to me why I am wrong and why the public property (Address) is not thread safe?
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks.
If the reference to your Person instance is shared among multiple threads then multiple threads could potentially change Address causing a race condition. However unless you are holding that reference in a static field or in Session (some sort of globally accessible place) then you don't have anything to be worried about.
If you are creating references to objects in your code like you have show above (var p = new Person();) then you are perfectly thread safe as other threads will not be able to access the reference to these objects without resorting to nasty and malicious tricks.
Your property is not thread safe, because you have no locking to prevent multiple writes to the property stepping on each others toes.
However, in your scenario where you are not sharing an instance of your class between multiple threads, the property doesn't need to be thread safe.
Objects that are shared between multiple threads, where each thread can change the state of the object, then all state changes need to be protected so that only one thread at a time can modify the object.
You should be fine with this, however there are a few things I'd worry about...
If your Person object was to be modified or held some disposable resources, you could potentially find that one of the threads will be unable to read this variable. To prevent this, you will need to lock the object before read/writing it to ensure it won't be trampled on by other threads. The easiest way is by using the lock{} construct.
I want a function like GetCurrentThread which returns a TThread object of the current executing thread. I know there is a Win32 API call GetCurrentThread, but it returns the thread Id. If there is a possibility to get TThread object from that ID that's also fine.
From your own answer, it seems maybe you only want to "determine if running in the main thread or not", in which case you can just use
if Windows.GetCurrentThreadId() = System.MainThreadID then
// ...
Although this won't work from a DLL created with Delphi if it was loaded by a worker thread.
The latest version of Delphi, Delphi 2009, has a CurrentThread class property on the TThread class.
This will return the proper Delphi thread object if it's a native thread. If the thread is an "alien" thread, i.e. created using some other mechanism or on a callback from a third party thread, then it will create a wrapper thread around the thread handle.
I'm using my own TThread descendent that registers itself in a global list, protected with a lock.
That way, a method in this descendent can walk the list and get a TThread give an ID.
Answering my own question. I guess it is not possible to get TThread object from ID. It is possible by using a global variable. Then comparing its handle and current thread id, one can determine if running in the main thread or not.
Wouldn't the current executing thread be the one you're trying to run a function from?
You could store the pointer of the TThread instance in the current thread's context via the TlsSetValue API call and then retrieve it using TlsGetValue. However, note that this will only work if you're trying to retrieve/store the TThread instance of the current thread.