So I'm trying to use the TPL features in .NET 4.0 and have some code like this (don't laugh):
/// <summary>Fetches a thread along with its posts. Increments the thread viewed counter.</summary>
public Thread ViewThread(int threadId)
{
// Get the thread along with the posts
Thread thread = this.Context.Threads.Include(t => t.Posts)
.FirstOrDefault(t => t.ThreadID == threadId);
// Increment viewed counter
thread.NumViews++;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try {
this.Context.SaveChanges();
}
catch (Exception ex) {
this.Logger.Error("Error viewing thread " + thread.Title, ex);
}
this.Logger.DebugFormat(#"Thread ""{0}"" viewed and incremented.", thread.Title);
});
return thread;
}
So my immediate concerns with the lambda are this.Context (my entity framework datacontext member), this.Logger (logger member) and thread (used in the logger call). Normally in the QueueUserWorkItem() days, I would think these would need to be passed into the delegate as part of a state object. Are closures going to be bail me out of needing to do that?
Another issue is that the type that this routine is in implements IDisposable and thus is in a using statement. So if I do something like...
using (var bl = new ThreadBL()) {
t = bl.ViewThread(threadId);
}
... am I going to create a race between a dispose() call and the TPL getting around to invoking my lambda?
Currently I'm seeing the context save the data back to my database but no logging - no exceptions either. This could be a configuration thing on my part but something about this code feels odd. I don't want to have unhandled exceptions in other threads. Any input is welcome!
As for your question on closures, yes this is exactly what closures are about. You don't worry about passing state, instead it is captured for you from any outer context and copied onto a compiler supplied class which is also where the closure method will be defined. The compiler does a lot of magic here to make you're life simple. If you want to understand more I highly recommend picking up Jon Skeet's C# in Depth. The chapter on closures is actually available here.
As for your specific implementation, it will not work mainly for the exact problem you mentioned: the Task will be scheduled at the end of ViewThread, but potentially not execute before your ThreadBL instance is disposed of.
Related
What is the recommended way to do multithreading with MVVM Light.
I have a model which has a bool property Busy
public bool Busy
{
get { return busy_; }
set
{
Set(nameof(Busy), ref busy_, value, broadcast: true);
}
}
My view model publish the model directly for the view (the model is inherit MVVM Light's ViewModelBase), so the view binds directly to the model's busy property.
If I call the model always from the UI thread everything is good. But if I do the following in my view model so it may execute on a different thread
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
model_.SomeFunctionThatWillSetBusyDuringItsExecution();
});
Then of course Busy is set from a non UI thread and then the binding fails and the application crashes. If I happen to use the Messenger in the property setter, it seems the Messenger does not automatically dispatch the Messenger handler code to the UI thread either.
I realized there is a DispatcherHelper in MVVM Light, but for the binding it does not seem to help. If I change the property to
public bool Busy
{
get { return busy_; }
set
{
DispatcherHelper.CheckBeginInvokeOnUI(() =>
{
Set(nameof(Busy), ref busy_, value, broadcast: true);
});
}
}
I still get an exception and the application crash due to the binding source is not on the correct thread. So my question is simple, what is the recommended way to do multithreading like this in MVVM Light?
I did also try to use a syncronizationContext.
syncContext_.Post(() =>
{
Set(nameof(Busy), ref busy_, value, broadcast: true);
}, null);
That works if the call is always from a non UI-thread. If the call is already from the UI thread, the syncContext.Post results in that the Set() function is not called until all the code in the ViewModel method has finished. That means the busy state might not be updated correctly for the remaining code. So it is not an ideal solution.
I am thankful for help on this topic.
Instead of adding the DispatcherHelper code inside the property I added it at all places where the property was modified. Then it seems to work well.
Only problem, since one dispatch the work to the UI thread, the code in the ViewModel would not get the updated state if part of the view model method already runs on the UI thread. I found a way to force the UI thread to process its messenger queue though making sure it got the updated state of Busy. It is not the best looking solution, and it is likely to have a bad performance impact due to all context switching, but at least it works and it is a simple one liner.
Code to force the UI thread to process all messages in its queue
DispatcherHelper.UIDispatcher.Invoke(new Action(() => { }), DispatcherPriority.ContextIdle, null);
If there is a more optimal way to solve it then please let me know. Otherwise I will set this as the answer in a few days from now.
I've been having some issues with threading in monotouch. My app makes use of an external library which I've linked with and it works fine. Because of the nature of the app and the library I have to make all the calls to it on a single separate thread.These calls will generally be :
Random non deterministic caused by user
Every t miliseconds(around 20ms). Like an update function
After reading for a bit I decided to try out NSThread. I've managed to call the Update function by attaching an NSTimer to the thread's RunLoop and it's all working fine. The problem that I'm having now is calling other methods on the same thread. I read somewhere that using PerformSelector on the RunLoop adds the selector invocation to the RunLoop's queue and invokes it when available, which is basically exactly what I need. However the methods that I need to call :
Can have multiple paramteres
Have callbacks, which I need to invoke on the main thread, again with multiple parameters
For the multiple parameters problem I saw that NSInvocation can be a solution, but the life of me I can't figure out how to do it with monotouch and haven't found any relevant examples.
For the actuals calls that I need to make to the library, I tried doing a generic way in which I can call any function I choose via delegates on a particular thread, which sort of works until I'm hit with the multiple parameters and/or callbacks to the main thread again with multiple parameters. Should I maybe just register separate selectors for each (wrapped)function that I need to call from the library?
I'm not hellbent on using this approach, if there is a better way I'm open to it, it's just that after searching for other options I saw that they don't fit my case:
GCD(not even sure I have it in monotouch) spawns threads on it's own whenever necessary. I need a single specific thread to schedule my work on
NSInvocationQueue(which uses GCD internally from what I read) does the same thing.
pThreads, seem overkill and managing them will be a pain(not even sure I can use them in monotouch)
I'm not an iOS developer, the app works fine with monodroid where I had Runnables and Handlers which make life easier :) . Maybe I'm not looking at this the right way and there is a simple solution to this. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks
UPDATE
I was thinking of doing something along these lines :
Have a simple wrapper :
class SelectorHandler : NSObject
{
public static Selector Selector = new Selector("apply");
private Action execute;
public SelectorHandler(Action ex)
{
this.execute = ex;
}
[Register("apply")]
private void Execute()
{
execute();
}
}
Extend NSThread
public class Daemon : NSThread
{
public void Schedule(Action action)
{
SelectorHandler handler = new SelectorHandler(action);
handler.PerformSelector(SelectorHandler.Selector, this, null, true);
}
}
Then, when I want to call something I can do it like this :
private Daemon daemon;
public void Call_Library_With_Callback(float param, Action<int> callback)
{
daemon.Schedule(() =>
{
int callbackResult = 0;
//Native library calls
//{
// Assign callback result
//}
daemon.InvokeOnMainThread(() =>
{
callback(callbackResult);
});
});
}
I'm not very experienced with this topic so forgive me if this isn't very clear.
I've created a Portable Class Library that has an ObservableCollection of Sections, and each secion has an ObservableCollection of Items.
Both of these collections are bound to the UI of separate Win8 and WP8 apps.
I'm trying to figure out the correct way to populate these collections correctly so that the UI gets updated from the PCL class.
If the class was inside the win8 project I know I could do something like Dispatcher.BeginInvoke, but this doesn't translate to the PCL, nor would I be able to reuse that in the WP8 project.
In this thread (Portable class library equivalent of Dispatcher.Invoke or Dispatcher.RunAsync) I discovered the SynchroniationContext class.
I passed in a reference to the main app's SynchroniationContext, and when I populate the sections I can do so because it's only the one object being updated:
if (SynchronizationContext.Current == _synchronizationContext)
{
// Execute the CollectionChanged event on the current thread
UpdateSections(sections);
}
else
{
// Post the CollectionChanged event on the creator thread
_synchronizationContext.Post(UpdateSections, sections);
}
However, when I try to do the same thing with articles, I have to have a reference to both the section AND the article, but the Post method only allows me to pass in a single object.
I attempted to use a lambda expression:
if (SynchronizationContext.Current == _synchronizationContext)
{
// Execute the CollectionChanged event on the current thread
section.Items.Add(item);
}
else
{
// Post the CollectionChanged event on the creator thread
_synchronizationContext.Post((e) =>
{
section.Items.Add(item);
}, null);
}
but I'm guessing this is not correct as I'm getting an error about being "marshalled for a different thread".
So where am I going wrong here? how can I update both collections correctly from the PCL so that both apps can also update their UI?
many thanks!
Hard to say without seeing the rest of the code but I doubt is has anything to do with Portable Class Libraries. It would be good to see the details about the exception (type, message and stack trace).
The way you call Post() with more than argument looks correct. What happens if you remove the if check and simply always go through SynchronizationContext.Post()?
BTW: I don't explicitly pass in the SynchronizationContext. I assume that the ViewModel is created on the UI Thread. This allows me to capture it like this:
public class MyViewModel
{
private SynchronizationContext _context = SynchronizationContext.Current;
}
I would recommend that at least in your ViewModels, all publicly observable state changes (ie property change notifications and modifications to ObservableCollections) happen on the UI thread. I’d recommend doing the same thing with your model state changes, but it might make sense to let them make changes on different threads and marshal those changes to the UI thread in your ViewModels.
To do this, of course, you need to be able to switch to the UI thread in portable code. If SynchronizationContext isn’t working for you, then just create your own abstraction for the dispatcher (ie IRunOnUIThread).
The reason you were getting the "marshalled on a different thread" error is that you weren't passing the item to add to the list as the "state" object on the Post(action, state) method.
Your code should look like this:
if (SynchronizationContext.Current == _synchronizationContext)
{
// Execute the CollectionChanged event on the current thread
section.Items.Add(item);
}
else
{
// Post the CollectionChanged event on the creator thread
_synchronizationContext.Post((e) =>
{
var item = (YourItemnType) e;
section.Items.Add(item);
}, item);
}
If you make that change, your code will work fine from a PCL.
(Pseudo-)Code
Here is a non-compilable code-sketch of the concepts I am having trouble with:
struct Data {};
struct A {};
struct B {};
struct C {};
/* and many many more...*/
template<typename T>
class Listener {
public:
Listener(MyObject* worker):worker(worker)
{ /* do some magic to register with RTI DDS */ };
public:
// This function is used ass a callback from RTI DDS, i.e. it will be
// called from other threads when new Data is available
void callBackFunction(Data d)
{
T t = extractFromData(d);
// Option 1: direct function call
// works somewhat, but shows "QObject::startTimer: timers cannot be started
// from another thread" at the console...
worker->doSomeWorkWithData(t); //
// Option 2: Use invokeMethod:
// seems to fail, as the macro expands including '"T"' and that type isn't
// registered with the QMetaType system...
// QMetaObject::invokeMethod(worker,"doSomeGraphicsWork",Qt::AutoConnection,
// Q_ARG(T, t)
// );
// Option 3: use signals slots
// fails as I can't make Listener, a template class, a QObject...
// emit workNeedsToBeDone(t);
}
private:
MyObject* worker;
T extractFromData(Data d){ return T(d);};
};
class MyObject : public QObject {
Q_OBJECT
public Q_SLOTS:
void doSomeWorkWithData(A a); // This one affects some QGraphicsItems.
void doSomeWorkWithData(B b){};
void doSomeWorkWithData(C c){};
public:
MyObject():QObject(nullptr){};
void init()
{
// listeners are not created in the constructor, but they should have the
// same thread affinity as the MyObject instance that creates them...
// (which in this example--and in my actual code--would be the main GUI
// thread...)
new Listener<A>(this);
new Listener<B>(this);
new Listener<C>(this);
};
};
main()
{
QApplication app;
/* plenty of stuff to set up RTI DDS and other things... */
auto myObject = new MyObject();
/* stuff resulting in the need to separate "construction" and "initialization" */
myObject.init();
return app.exec();
};
Some more details from the actual code:
The Listener in the example is a RTI DataReaderListener, the callback
function is onDataAvailable()
What I would like to accomplish
I am trying to write a little distributed program that uses RTI's Connext DDS for communication and Qt5 for the GUI stuff--however, I don't believe those details do matter much as the problem, as far as I understood it, boils down to the following:
I have a QObject-derived object myObject whose thread affinity might or might not be with the main GUI thread (but for simplicity, let's assume that is the case.)
I want that object to react to event's which happen in another, non-Qt 3rd-party library (in my example code above represented by the functions doSomeWorkWithData().
What I understand so far as to why this is problematic
Disclaimer: As usual, there is always more than one new thing one learns when starting a new project. For me, the new things here are/were RTI's Connext and (apparently) my first time where I myself have to deal with threads.
From reading about threading in Qt (1,2,3,4, and 5 ) it seems to me that
QObjects in general are not thread safe, i.e. I have to be a little careful about things
Using the right way of "communicating" with QObjects should allow me to avoid having to deal with mutexes etc myself, i.e. somebody else (Qt?) can take care of serializing access for me.
As a result from that, I can't simply have (random) calls to MyClass::doSomeWorkWithData() but I need to serialize that. One, presumably easy, way to do so is to post an event to the event queue myObject lives in which--when time is available--will trigger the execution of the desired method, MyClass::doSomeWorkWithData() in my case.
What I have tried to make things work
I have confirmed that myObject, when instantiated similarly as in the sample code above, is affiliated with the main GUI thread, i.e. myObject.thread() == QApplication::instance()->thread().
With that given, I have tried three options so far:
Option 1: Directly calling the function
This approach is based upon the fact that
- myObject lives in the GUI thread
- All the created listeners are also affiliated with the GUI thread as they are
created by `myObject' and inherit its thread that way
This actually results in the fact that doSomeWorkWithData() is executed. However,
some of those functions manipulate QGraphicsItems and whenever that is the case I get
error messages reading: "QObject::startTimer: timers cannot be started from another
thread".
Option 2: Posting an event via QMetaObject::invokeMethod()
Trying to circumvent this problem by properly posting an event for myObject, I
tried to mark MyObject::doSomeWorkWithData() with Q_INVOKABLE, but I failed at invoking the
method as I need to pass arguments with Q_ARG. I properly registered and declared my custom types
represented by struct A, etc. in the example), but I failed at the fact the
Q_ARG expanded to include a literal of the type of the argument, which in the
templated case didn't work ("T" isn't a registered or declared type).
Trying to use conventional signals and slots
This approach essentially directly failed at the fact that the QMeta system doesn't
work with templates, i.e. it seems to me that there simply can't be any templated QObjects.
What I would like help with
After spending about a week on attempting to fix this, reading up on threads (and uncovering some other issues in my code), I would really like to get this done right.
As such, I would really appreciate if :
somebody could show me a generic way of how a QObject's member function can be called via a callback function from another 3rd-party library (or anything else for that matter) from a different, non QThread-controlled, thread.
somebody could explain to me why Option 1 works if I simply don't create a GUI, i.e. do all the same work, just without a QGraphcisScene visualizing it (and the project's app being a QCoreApplication instead of a QApplication and all the graphics related work #defineed out).
Any, and I mean absolutely any, straw I could grasp on is truly appreciated.
Update
Based on the accepted answer I altered my code to deal with callbacks from other threads: I introduced a thread check at the beginning of my void doSomeWorkWithData() functions:
void doSomeWorkWithData(A a)
{
if( QThread::currentThread() != this->thread() )
{
QMetaObject::invokeMethod( this,"doSomeWorkWithData"
,Qt::QueuedConnection
,Q_ARG(A, a) );
return;
}
/* The actual work this function does would be below here... */
};
Some related thoughts:
I was contemplating to introduce a QMutexLocker before the if statement, but decided against it: the only part of the function that is potentially used in parallel (anything above the return; in the if statement) is--as far as I understand--thread safe.
Setting the connection type manually to Qt::QueuedConnection: technically, if I understand the documentation correctly, Qt should do the right thing and the default, Qt::AutoConnection, should end up becoming a Qt::QueuedConnection. But since would always be the case when that statement is reached, I decided to put explicitly in there to remind myself about why this is there.
putting the queuing code directly in the function and not hiding it in an interim function: I could have opted to put the call to invokeMethod in another interim function, say queueDoSomeWorkWithData()', which would be called by the callback in the listener and then usesinvokeMethodwith anQt::AutoConnection' on doSomeWorkWithData(). I decided against this as there seems no way for me to auto-code this interim function via templates (templates and the Meta system was part of the original problem), so "the user" of my code (i.e. the person who implements doSomeWorkWithData(XYZ xyz)) would have to hand type the interim function as well (as that is how the templated type names are correctly resolved). Including the check in the actual function seems to me to safe typing an extra function header, keeps the MyClass interface a little cleaner, and better reminds readers of doSomeWorkWithData() that there might be a threading issue lurking in the dark.
It is ok to call a public function on a subclass of QObject from another thread if you know for certain that the individual function will perform only thread-safe actions.
One nice thing about Qt is that it will handle foreign threads just as well as it handles QThreads. So, one option is to create a threadSafeDoSomeWorkWithData function for each doSomeWorkWithData that does nothing but QMetaMethod::invoke the non-threadsafe one.
public:
void threadSafeDoSomeWorkWithData(A a) {
QMetaMethod::invoke("doSomeWorkWithData", Q_ARG(A,a));
}
Q_INVOKABLE void doSomeWorkWithData(A a);
Alternatively, Sergey Tachenov suggests an interesting way of doing more or less the same thing in his answer here. He combines the two functions I suggested into one.
void Obj2::ping() {
if (QThread::currentThread() != this->thread()) {
// not sure how efficient it is
QMetaObject::invoke(this, "ping", Qt::QueuedConnection);
return;
}
// thread unsafe code goes here
}
As to why you see normal behaviour when not creating a GUI? Perhaps you're not doing anything else that is unsafe, aside from manipulating GUI objects. Or, perhaps they're the only place in which your thread-safety problems are obvious.
imagine you have a function that creates/copies/moves files. [logic]
For the case that a file that should be copied/created already exists you would like to ask the user to overwrite the file or not.[(G)UI]
What is your approach to implement this if (G)UI and logic are completely separated?
The first thing that comes into my mind would be the MVC-pattern, but this means that I would have to use it whereever I need user interaction.
Any other suggestions?
BTW: How would you implement this in non-OO-languages?
If GUI and logic are really separated, then this question should never arise. The program should, by design, either overwrite or not overwrite based on an option which has a default value. If the GUI is available, the option can be set.
In fact, although the obvious approach is to just have at it and begin copying, you could make a first pass looking for conflicts, and checking that the target device has enough free storage. Then, if there is a problem, terminate by doing nothing, unless there is a GUI in which case you can report the problem and ask whether to proceed anyway.
If you want to have a design in which the GUI can be invoked on a file by file basis, then design the logic around that as a set of n processes each of which copies one file, and has an optional GUI available in the error reporting section. The GUI can then reinvoke the copy-one-file logic.
I can see two ways:
You have two functions, file_exists(...) and copy_file(...). The UI side always calls file_exists first and asks the user whether to copy the file is it already exists.
You have only one function copy_file(bool force, ...), that by default fails if the file exists. So UI side calls the default version of the function, check if it failed and why, if it was because the file already exists, ask the user and try again with force=true.
In a Non OO language I would implement some kind of event queue where the parent (or child, depending on your design) UI polled for events while a 'busy' flag was true. Such an event lets the other side do other work while waiting for a 'they answered' flag to come true. Of course, some timeout in both directions would have to be observed as well as mutual exclusion. Basically, imply the principles of non-blocking I/O or your favorite theory on practical lock free programming here.
There are degrees of separation .. processes can communicate. Depending on your language of choice, you have shared memory segments, semaphores .. or IPC via relational DB with primitive signals. Its hard to be more specific with such a generic question.
See my comment, a little more information is needed so an answer can be crafted that works within your language of choice.
The first thing that comes into my mind would be the MVC-pattern, but this means that I would have to use it wherever I need user interaction.
And this is a bad thing why? Separating GUI and logic is exactly what the MVC pattern is for. Don't be scared of it just because it a has a long name -- as soon as you've separated GUI and logic you have a "view" and a "controller", at least, if not a "model" -- and if your application has state, you've got a model too. You just may not have admitted it to yourself yet.
From what I can see, there are really two problems:
We have an algorithm (logic) in which we would like to defer some operations and decisions to something else (e.g. user via UI).
We would like to avoid tight coupling between the algorithm and that something else.
If we use OO languages, there are several design patters which address these two specific problems.
Template Method pattern can solve #1. It does not solve #2 very well because the typical implementation is via inheritence.
Observer pattern looks promising too.
So really it is choosing and mixing the simplest one for the needs and most suitable for the language.
In practical terms, if talk about C# for example, we can implement Template Method and Observer hybrid like this:
// This will handle extensions to the FileCopy algorithm
abstract class FileCopyExtention
{
public abstract Response WhatToDoWhenFileExists();
}
// the copy function, pure logic
public static void Copy(string source, string destination, FileCopyExtention extension)
{
if (File.Exists(destination))
{
var response = _extension.WhatToDoWhenFileExists();
if (response == overwrite)
// overwrite the file
else
// error
}
}
// This is our user-interactive UI extension
class FileCopyUI : FileCopyExtention
{
public override Response WhatToDoWhenFileExists()
{
// show some UI, return user's response to the caller
}
}
// the program itself
void Main()
{
Copy("/tmp/foo", "/tmp/bar", new FileCopyUI());
}
As a variation of the theme, you can use events, delegates or whatever the language of your choice provides.
In C, this could be a function pointer, in C++ a reference to a class I guess.
What about this approach [pseudo-code]:
UIClass
{
//
// Some code
//
bool fileCopied = false;
do {
try {
fileCopied = CopyFile(fileName);
} catch (FileExists) {
//
// Ask "File exists! Overwrite?" If "No", exit do-loop
//
} catch (FileLocked) {
//
// Ask "File Locked! Repeat?", If "No", exit do-loop
//
} catch (etc...) {
//
// etc.
//
}
} while (!fileCopied);
//
// Some code
//
}
LogicClass
{
//
// Some code
//
bool CopyFile(string fileName)
{
//
// copy file
//
}
//
// Some code
//
}