I have a Observable.Timer(TimeSpan) multiple times, but in couple of places I have used Observable.Timer(DateTimeOffset) to trigger the event at that time, but I believe it is stopping my process from exiting.
DateTimeOffset offset = new DateTimeOffset(minStart);
Observable.Timer(offset)
.Subscribe(_ =>
{
UpdateActive();
});
This piece of code is in my ViewModel and on Window Closed, the process is still running in the background, normally wherever I use the Observable.Timer(TimeSpan) they gets disposed automatically, why doesn't this?
Am I doing something wrong or is it a bug? Or am I missing something?
Given that you're using one of the Subscribe() extension methods, assuming you're using a recent version of RX, the observable should be releasing any subscribers when it completes. Is your observable completing in one case but not the other?
If your observable has not completed (i.e. if the time represented by offset hasn't happened yet) by the time you close your window, nothing is going to automatically unsubscribe for you. Here's what the introtorx site has to say on this matter (emphasis mine):
Considering this, I thought it was prudent to note that subscriptions
will not be automatically disposed of. You can safely assume that the
instance of IDisposable that is returned to you does not have a
finalizer and will not be collected when it goes out of scope. If you
call a Subscribe method and ignore the return value, you have lost
your only handle to unsubscribe. The subscription will still exist,
and you have effectively lost access to this resource, which could
result in leaking memory and running unwanted processes.
Using the overload of Observable.Timer that accepts DateTimeOffset will not on it's own cause a process to be held open; something else is responsible for this.
However, the consequence of not disposing subscriptions to Observable.Timer is that you will leak the timer resource.
You should retain the IDisposable subscription handles for timer and event based observables and dispose them appropriately; most WPF frameworks provide a suitable event for this.
In general, I track and dispose of all my window-scoped subscriptions, just to be on the safe side. See Convert Polling Web Service to RX for an example.
Related
In my Tcl extension, a secondary thread is filling the Tcl event queue with events; the events contain pointers to structures with a dynamic life time.
What is the right strategy for ensuring that no events with dangling pointers to de-allocated structures remain in the event queue? I can prevent the secondary thread from creating new events; currently I call Tcl_DoOneEvent(TCL_DONTWAIT) in a loop till it returns 0 (i.e., event queue is empty) after ensuring no new events can be created and before de-allocating the structure.
Is that the right way to do it?
On a related note, I am unsure of the purpose of Tcl_ThreadAlert(): if this is needed after every call to Tcl_ThreadQueueEvent(), why isn't the alert included in Tcl_ThreadQueueEvent()?
Finally, my code does not call Tcl_CreateEventSource(), since it doesn't seem to be needing a setup nor a check procedure as a second thread is involved. Is that cause for concern?
On the first point, that seems OK to me. It is very much like running update at the TCL level.
I'm not sure about the second point, as it isn't part of the API that I have explored a lot. It might be that way to allow multiple events to be scheduled per notification, or because there are other uses for the call, but I really don't know.
On the third point, it sounds fine. I think you never need special event sources just to do inter-thread messaging.
I have an WPF application which contains many classes that support INotifyProprtyChange interface. The property on this classes are changed at high rate from different threads and the problem is that in some cases application UI thread hangs , along with the UI thread other threads that have code calling PropertyChange also hangs while trying update properties.
I did a deadlock check with Windbg but it could detect none.
Now i looked at the stack trace of the threads holding locks and what i always see is that at least one same or different thread has
00000000002d0ab8 000000007712908a [HelperMethodFrame_1OBJ: 00000000002d0ab8] System.Threading.SynchronizationContext.WaitHelper(IntPtr[], Boolean, Int32)
00000000002d13b0 000000007712908a [GCFrame: 00000000002d13b0]
00000000002d16c8 000000007712908a [HelperMethodFrame_1OBJ: 00000000002d16c8] System.Threading.ReaderWriterLock.AcquireReaderLockInternal(Int32)
00000000002d17f0 000007fef1bcf1a0 MS.Internal.ReaderWriterLockWrapper.get_ReadLock()
00000000002d1830 000007fef1ba8d44 System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventManager.OnPropertyChanged(System.Object, System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventArgs)
and another
000000001f64d138 000000007738186a [HelperMethodFrame_1OBJ: 000000001f64d138] System.Threading.ReaderWriterLock.AcquireReaderLockInternal(Int32)
000000001f64d260 000007fef1bcf1a0 MS.Internal.ReaderWriterLockWrapper.get_ReadLock()
000000001f64d2a0 000007fef1ba8d44 System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventManager.OnPropertyChanged(System.Object, System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventArgs)
So its looks like PropertyChangedEventManager wait for some thread to complete while other threads wait to acquire lock?
Now i am having troubles figuring out why this occurs as its sporadic and usually happens when there is many property change events. From what i see other threads in application that not calling property change continue to run normally.
As far as I know PropertyNotifyChanged is only supported in the UI thread.
Just guessing. In bigger environments one problem happends quiet easy: 2 properties update each other endlessly. The setter of prop A calls the setter of prop B which in turn calls the setter of A again. Usually of course not that obvious as described but could be worth to look at.
I am using WCF services asynchronously in a WPF application. So I have class with all the web service. The view models call the method in this proc, which in-turn calls the web service.
So the view Model code looks like this:
WebServiceAgent.GetProductByID(SelectedProductID, (s, e)=>{States = e.Result;});
And the WebService agent looks like:
public static void GetProductByID(int ProductID, EventHandler<GetProductListCompletedEventArgs> callback)
{
Client.GetProductByIDCompleted += callback;
Client.GetProductByIDAsync(ProductID);
}
Is this a good approach? I am using MVVM light toolkit. So the View Model static, so in the lifetime of the application, the view model stays. But each time the view model calls this WebServiceAgent, I think I am registering an event. But that event is not being unregistered.
Is this a problem. Lets say the view Model is called for 20 - 30 times. I am inserting some kind of memory leak?
Some helpful information, based on the mistakes I learned from myself:
The Client object seems to be re-used all the time. When not unregisering event handlers, they will stack up when future invokations of the same operations finish and you'll get unpredictable results.
The States = e.Result statement is executed on the event handler's thread, which is not the UI dispatcher thread. When updating lists or complex properties this will cause problems.
In general not unregistering event handlers when they are invoked is a bad idea as it will indeed cause hard to find memory leaks.
You should probably refactor to create or re-use a clean client, wrap the viewmodel callback inside another callback that will take care of unregistering itself, cleaning up the client, and invoking the viewmodel's callback on the main dispatcher thread.
If you think all this is tedious, check out http://blogs.msdn.com/b/csharpfaq/archive/2010/10/28/async.aspx and http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/async.aspx. In the next version of C# an async keyword will be introduced to make this all easier. A CTP is available already.
Event handlers are death traps and you will leak them if you do not "unsubscribe" with "-=".
One way to avoid is to use RX (Reactive Extensions) that will manage your event subscriptions. Take a look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg577609 and specifically creating Observable by using Observable.FromEvent or FromAsync http://rxwiki.wikidot.com/101samples.
This is unfortunaltely not a good approach.
I learned this the hard way in silverlight.
Your WebserviceAgent is probably a long-life object, whereas the model or view is probably short-life
Events give references, and in this case the webservice agent, and wcf client a reference to the model. A long lifeobject has a reference to a short life object, this means the short life object will not be collected, and so will have a memory leak.
As Pieter-Bias said, the async functionality will make this easier.
Have you looked at RIA services? This is the exact problem that RIA services was designed to solve
Yes, the event handlers are basically going to cause a leak unless removed. To get the near-single line equivalent of what you're expressing in your code, and to remove handlers you're going to need an instance of some sort of class that represents the full lifecycle of the call and does some housekeeping.
What I've done is create a Caller<TResult> class that uses an underlying WCF client proxy following this basic pattern:
create a Caller instance around an existing or new client proxy (the proxy's lifecycle is outside of the scope of the call to be made (so you can use a new short-lived one or an existing long-lived one).
use one of Caller's various CallAsync<TArg [,...]> overloads to specify the async method to call and the intended callback to call upon completion. This method will choose the async method that also takes a state parameter. The state parameter will be the Caller instance itself.
I say intended because the real handler that will be wired up will do a bit more housekeeping. The real callback is what will be called at the end of the async call, and will
check that ReferenceEquals(e.UserState, this) in your real handler
if not true, immediately return (the event was not intended to be the result of this particular call and should be ignored; this is very important if your proxy is long lived)
otherwise, immediately remove the real handler
call your intended, actual callback with e.Result
Modify Caller's real handler as needed to execute the intended callback on the right thread (more important for WPF than Silverlight)
The above implementation should also have separate handlers for cases where e.Error is non-null or e.Cancelled is true. This gives you the advantage of not checking these cases in your intended callback. Perhaps your overloads take in optional handlers for those cases.
At any rate, you end up cleaning up handlers aggressively at the expense of some per-call wiring. It's a bit expensive per-call, but with proper optimization ends up being far less expensive than the over-the-wire WCF call anyway.
Here's an example of a call using the class (you'll note I use method groups in many cases to increase the readability, though HandleStuff could have been result => use result ). The first method group is important, because CallAsync gets the owner of that delegate (i.e. the service instance), which is needed to call the method; alternatively the service could be passed in as a separate parameter).
Caller<AnalysisResult>.CallAsync(
// line below could also be longLivedAnalyzer.AnalyzeSomeThingsAsync
new AnalyzerServiceClient().AnalyzeSomeThingsAsync,
listOfStuff,
HandleAnalyzedStuff,
// optional handlers for error or cancelled would go here
onFailure:TellUserWhatWentWrong);
Acording to my understanding Dispatcher.Invoke and Dispatcher.BeginInvoke executes on UI thread, The only difference is That Invoke is synchronous and BeginInvoke is asynchronous.My problem is when i use this code
EDisc.App.Current.Dispatcher.
Invoke(
DispatcherPriority.Normal, new Action(delegate
{
context = NavigationManager.CurrentPage.DataContext;
}));
Value of context is returned. However with the below code
EDisc.App.Current.Dispatcher.
BeginInvoke(
DispatcherPriority.Normal, new Action(delegate
{
context = NavigationManager.CurrentPage.DataContext;
}));
Context is null and i get an InvalidOperation Exception saying "
The calling thread cannot access this object because a different thread owns it.I am calling this from a WCF service which is executing with UseSynchronizationContext = false .Can anybody explain this behaviour?
Both BeginInvoke and Invoke will end up calling an internal method called BeginInvokeImpl to do the work. The difference is that Invoke then waits for the operation to complete before returning.
And there's one other difference: if you are already on the UI thread and you're using DispatcherPriority.Send Invoke will actually invoke the method directly without going via BeginInvokeImpl, meaning that the operation is processed without going via the message queue. (If you're not using Send then any other messages already queued up with higher property than your operation will get processed first.)
But since you're presumably not on the UI thread here - you're on some WCF callback - that special case won't apply. So Invoke ends up calling into the same underlying implementation as BeginInvoke.
From the information you've provided, I'd have to guess that there's a missing detail somewhere here. The code you've shown should work fine, unless perhaps you have multiple UI threads in your application, and the page that happens to be in CurrentPage belongs to different threads from time to time.
If you do have multiple UI threads, then the approach you're using - pushing everything through the current Application object's dispatcher - isn't going to work, because you'll have multiple dispatchers. You'd need to get the right dispatcher for whichever UI element you're planning to touch.
Incidentally, one way you might accidentally end up with multiple UI threads is if you construct a UI object (e.g. a Page) on some worker thread or callback. Is it possible that you've done that somewhere?
I'm developing a Silverlight app that makes multiple async requests to a number of web services. I want a modal "loading" dialog to stay active until all the requests have completed. I'm managing the situation by using a counter variable that gets incremented on each async request start event, and decrements on each async complete event (doesn't seem thread safe to me). When the counter is zero a property bound to the UI turns the dialog off. Is there a better/more general way of dealing with this problem than my counter solution?
Your counter solution is a valid one. Whatever you do, you will have to keep track of all your requests and understand when they arrive (when count hits zero).
You can do different things to clean up your code like put all of this implementation in some MultiAsyncWaiter class which returns an event when complete. But the fundamental implmentation will remain the same: keep track of them until they all return.
You are right about the thread unsafe-ness of the int. If you use interlocked operations (see comments) or lock on the variable, you can keep your implementation thread safe.
Why volatile keyword wont work: With multiple threads changing the variable, an interlocked operation is required for the decrement, which is technically a read + write operation. This is because another thread can change the value between the read and the write.