I need to make access to a reference object threadsafe. My natural instinct
was to simply use Monitor.Enter() and Exit(). The problem is that the
object behind the reference changes frequently, so my understanding of
Monitor indicates this would not protect my object. Example:
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap("x.jpg") ;
Monitor.Enter(b mp);
bmp = new Bitmap("y.jpg") ;
Monitor.Exit(bm p);
The above doesn't do when one might expect, correct? My C++ head says to me
that what I really want to do is protect the 'pointer', not thing 'thing
pointed to', since I have no other pointers to this thing. But I'm in C# now
and my head is baffled.
So currently I am using a Mutex to protect this kind of data, but it seems
more klunky. Is there any way to use the slick Monitor (or lock) syntax and
still protect this situation?
-Brett-
12  1878 
Why not just declare an invariant companion to the Bitmap
object bitmapGuard = new object();
and lock the guard instead
Regards
Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog
nntp://news.microsoft. com/microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.csharp/<O0************ **@TK2MSFTNGP10 .phx.gbl>
I need to make access to a reference object threadsafe. My natural instinct
was to simply use Monitor.Enter() and Exit(). The problem is that the
object behind the reference changes frequently, so my understanding of
Monitor indicates this would not protect my object. Example:
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap("x.jpg") ;
Monitor.Enter(b mp);
bmp = new Bitmap("y.jpg") ;
Monitor.Exit(bm p);
The above doesn't do when one might expect, correct? My C++ head says to me
that what I really want to do is protect the 'pointer', not thing 'thing
pointed to', since I have no other pointers to this thing. But I'm in C# now
and my head is baffled.
So currently I am using a Mutex to protect this kind of data, but it seems
more klunky. Is there any way to use the slick Monitor (or lock) syntax and
still protect this situation?
-Brett-
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28/09/2004
[microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.csharp]
hi
you can either use lock block or Mutex itself
regards
ansil
"Brett Robichaud" wrote: I need to make access to a reference object threadsafe. My natural instinct
was to simply use Monitor.Enter() and Exit(). The problem is that the
object behind the reference changes frequently, so my understanding of
Monitor indicates this would not protect my object. Example:
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap("x.jpg") ;
Monitor.Enter(b mp);
bmp = new Bitmap("y.jpg") ;
Monitor.Exit(bm p);
The above doesn't do when one might expect, correct? My C++ head says to me
that what I really want to do is protect the 'pointer', not thing 'thing
pointed to', since I have no other pointers to this thing. But I'm in C# now
and my head is baffled.
So currently I am using a Mutex to protect this kind of data, but it seems
more klunky. Is there any way to use the slick Monitor (or lock) syntax and
still protect this situation?
-Brett-
"Brett Robichaud" <br************ @nospam.yahoo.c om> a écrit dans le message
de news: O0************* *@TK2MSFTNGP10. phx.gbl... I need to make access to a reference object threadsafe. My natural
instinct
was to simply use Monitor.Enter() and Exit(). The problem is that the
object behind the reference changes frequently, so my understanding of
Monitor indicates this would not protect my object. Example:
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap("x.jpg") ;
Monitor.Enter(b mp);
bmp = new Bitmap("y.jpg") ;
Monitor.Exit(bm p);
Reference assignment is atomic. So, if all you do is reassign the bmp
variable, you don't need to protect it with Monitor.Enter/Exit
If you need to protect a block of code rather than a single assignment, you
should lock on a stable object rather than on a reference that changes all
the time. If you don't have any such object, you can always create one:
static readonly object MyLock = new object();
Bruno.
The above doesn't do when one might expect, correct? My C++ head says to
me
that what I really want to do is protect the 'pointer', not thing 'thing
pointed to', since I have no other pointers to this thing. But I'm in C#
now
and my head is baffled.
So currently I am using a Mutex to protect this kind of data, but it seems
more klunky. Is there any way to use the slick Monitor (or lock) syntax
and
still protect this situation?
-Brett-
> Reference assignment is atomic. So, if all you do is reassign the bmp variable, you don't need to protect it with Monitor.Enter/Exit
As long as you don't really care if other threads may get the old value
rather than the new one shortly after your assignment (sometimes, this is
harmless). If you care, you should use Monitor.Enter/Exit (or the volatile
keyword).
Bruno.
Brett Robichaud <br************ @nospam.yahoo.c om> wrote: I need to make access to a reference object threadsafe. My natural instinct
was to simply use Monitor.Enter() and Exit(). The problem is that the
object behind the reference changes frequently, so my understanding of
Monitor indicates this would not protect my object. Example:
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap("x.jpg") ;
Monitor.Enter(b mp);
bmp = new Bitmap("y.jpg") ;
Monitor.Exit(bm p);
The above doesn't do when one might expect, correct?
That depends on what you might expect :)
It doesn't do what you *want*, certainly.
My C++ head says to me
that what I really want to do is protect the 'pointer', not thing 'thing
pointed to', since I have no other pointers to this thing. But I'm in C# now
and my head is baffled.
So currently I am using a Mutex to protect this kind of data, but it seems
more klunky. Is there any way to use the slick Monitor (or lock) syntax and
still protect this situation?
Use a separate, unchanging reference for locking. See http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/t...ckchoice.shtml for more
information.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
That would work, but isn't really all that different than the mutex
approach. Though it does allow me to use the lock syntax that I like so
much. I'll give it some thought.
-Brett-
"Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor]" <ri******@devel op.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP12.phx.gbl.. . Why not just declare an invariant companion to the Bitmap
object bitmapGuard = new object();
and lock the guard instead
Regards
Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog
nntp://news.microsoft. com/microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.csharp/<O0************ **@TK2MSFTNGP10 .phx.gbl>
I need to make access to a reference object threadsafe. My natural
instinct was to simply use Monitor.Enter() and Exit(). The problem is that the
object behind the reference changes frequently, so my understanding of
Monitor indicates this would not protect my object. Example:
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap("x.jpg") ;
Monitor.Enter(b mp);
bmp = new Bitmap("y.jpg") ;
Monitor.Exit(bm p);
The above doesn't do when one might expect, correct? My C++ head says to
me that what I really want to do is protect the 'pointer', not thing 'thing
pointed to', since I have no other pointers to this thing. But I'm in C#
now and my head is baffled.
So currently I am using a Mutex to protect this kind of data, but it
seems more klunky. Is there any way to use the slick Monitor (or lock) syntax
and still protect this situation?
-Brett-
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28/09/2004
[microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.csharp]
Brett Robichaud <br************ @nospam.yahoo.c om> wrote: That would work, but isn't really all that different than the mutex
approach. Though it does allow me to use the lock syntax that I like so
much. I'll give it some thought.
Locks are also rather cheaper than mutexes, as they're entirely within
the CLR. And yes, lock is great :)
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
No, lock is terrible.
The concept of stack based synchronization primitve acquisition and release is great, and the fact that its's exception proof is great, but the lack of timeout sucks rocks. Infinite timeouts are a great way in multithreaded code to get unrecoverable deadlocks. Its much better to get the first 2 without the last by using a wrapper around Monitor.TryEnte r rather than Monitor.Enter (which lock is). Look at Ian Griffiths' TimedLock implementation here http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblo...retimedlocking
Used in conjunction with the using statement it gives stack based, exception proof access and it supports timeouts.
Regards
Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog
nntp://news.microsoft. com/microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.csharp/<MP************ ************@ms news.microsoft. com>
Brett Robichaud <br************ @nospam.yahoo.c om> wrote: That would work, but isn't really all that different than the mutex
approach. Though it does allow me to use the lock syntax that I like so
much. I'll give it some thought.
Locks are also rather cheaper than mutexes, as they're entirely within
the CLR. And yes, lock is great :)
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28/09/2004
[microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.csharp]
Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor] <ri******@devel op.com> wrote: No, lock is terrible.
The concept of stack based synchronization primitve acquisition and
release is great, and the fact that its's exception proof is great,
but the lack of timeout sucks rocks. Infinite timeouts are a great
way in multithreaded code to get unrecoverable deadlocks.
True - however, given that possibility, I think I'd rather have the
deadlock not recover and the whole process terminate rather than try to
recover, personally. Deadlock is usually the sign of a disastrous
coding mistake rather than anything else. I take your point, but
wouldn't say that lock is terrible :)
Its much
better to get the first 2 without the last by using a wrapper around
Monitor.TryEnte r rather than Monitor.Enter (which lock is). Look at
Ian Griffiths' TimedLock implementation here
http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblo...retimedlocking
Used in conjunction with the using statement it gives stack based,
exception proof access and it supports timeouts.
That's nice, yes - I'll try to remember it for cases where I would
genuinely find it useful.
What I *do* think is a shame is that Monitor works the way it does,
with any object, rather than Enter etc being instance methods which
need to be called on Monitor instances which are specifically created.
That would get rid of all the code which locks "this" for no good
reason. (It would also save a bit of space for every object which
didn't need to keep a monitor reference for locking purposes, but
that's not the principal reason for it.)
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Tum |
last post by:
Hi,
I've been working on DotGNU trying to implement the correct semantics for
monitors, thread.abort (etc) in the runtime.
Russell Stuart posted an example a few days ago which we discovered would
let two locked blocks to execute simulatenously.
As I moved onto implemeting Abort, I wondered how Thread.Abort() could
possibly abort a thread but yet maintain monitor consistancy. For example,
|
by: Charles Law |
last post by:
Hi guys. I'm back on the threading gig again.
It's the age-old question about waiting for something to happen without
wasting time doing it.
Take two threads: the main thread and a worker thread. The worker thread is
reading the serial port, waiting for something to happen (a service
request). When it does it raises an event. Of course, the event is executed
on the worker thread. The idea is that when the event is raised, the handler...
|
by: William Stacey |
last post by:
Using the following code sample:
public byte Get()
{
// <= Possible to switch Here??
lock(syncLock)
{
//Do something in Get().
}
}
|
by: Urs Vogel |
last post by:
Hi
I wrote an application server (a remoting sinlgeton), where processes must
be stopped in very rare cases, done thru a Thread.Abort(). Occasionally, and
only after a Thread.Abort(), this component becomes instabile, throwing a
Windows like error (access violation on 0x00000002), not an framework
exception. The component and all of its subcomponents are 100% managed code.
What could go wrong with Thread.Abort()?
Thanks for any hints.
|
by: GroZZleR |
last post by:
Hey all,
I'm threading newbie, I've never attempted it before. I've got a
button that when clicked starts up a thread to process some files.
This keeps my GUI responsive and gets the tasks done.
Here's an example of what I'm doing:
====================================
private void button1_Click(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
| | |
by: fiefie.niles |
last post by:
I am having problem with thread. I have a Session class with public
string variable (called Message) that I set from my Main program. In
the session class it checks for the value of Message while inside it's
"read loop" waiting for data from the client. I find that many times
while inside the "read loop" it missed many of the value that was
assigned to the public Message variable.
For example, the main program send number 1 thru 100, but...
|
by: fniles |
last post by:
I am having problem with thread. I have a Session class with public string
variable (called Message) that I set from my Main program. In the session
class it checks for the value of Message while inside it's "read loop"
waiting for data from the client. In the main program, I check to see if
the Message member has been cleared before changing its value, that way you
know it has been written by the
|
by: admin |
last post by:
ok This is my main. Pretty much it goes through each category and
starts up 4 worker threads that then ask for groups to gether from. My
problem is that when the thread gets done it keeps the mysql
connections open so I end up with quite a few at the end. Is there a
different way that I should do this?
class Program
{
static string categories = { "emulation" , "audio" ,
"console" , "anime" , "xxx" , "tv" , "pictures" , "video" };
|
by: Tony Gravagno |
last post by:
I have a class that instantiates two Timer objects that fire at
different intervals. My class can be instantiated within a Windows
Form or from a Windows Service. Actions performed by one of the event
handlers may take longer than the interval for either of the timers,
so it's possible for multiple events to fire "simultaneously" and for
events to queue up. I'm attempting to get the timers to sync on some
reference type object, or use...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
| | |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
