I am making an asynchronous call to a web service. Since it might take a few seconds there is a status Label used to let the user know what's going on. But even though the call is async the first call seems to block for a few seconds and the status label takes too long to get updated. In WinForms I could force the label to refresh (using Update() I think) but not in WPF. Any super easy ways to get this working?
Thanks,
Gerry
You could move the entire call logic into a QueueWorkUserItem or BackgroundWorker block. That way the first proxy initialization would not block the UIThread (before the async. Begin/End pattern kicks in). Assuming that you are using databinding the object exposing the property bound to the Label implemented INotifyPropertyChanged everything should happen automagically.
I'd (wildly) guess that the blocking is due to the creation/initialization of the service proxy classes. If so, you could try to create the proxy earlier, or call your asynchronous web service in another thread.
The general answer to your question about refreshing controls... I have always relied on data binding to do this. That won't help though if the main UI thread is stuck doing something. And if the UI thread is stuck, I don't know that there's any way to get it to draw.
There isn't a way to tell the label to refresh that will actually work in your case. If the UI is being blocked, it won't refresh. Basically, when you actually get to the point where you update the label's text, it will show in WPF. The only possible exception that I can think to that would be if you are using a non-WPF control but even then it should work.
My suggestion would be to update the label before you perform the first action (even before variables are initialized, since this might be where the issue actually is). Here is a pseudocode example of what I mean (just in case I wasn't clear):
private void KickOffProcess()
{
label1.Text = "Processing ..."; //This is where you need to move the label update code
AsyncCall();
}
Related
I have this:
Shows a waiting animation to 'block' the UI while performs a loading operation in the background.
At the end of the loading I call a method that instances a User Control and displays some data by using Bindings (and ObservableCollection among others)
This User Control gets displayed and user can interact with it, however the ObservableCollection seems to be stuck in another thread as it doesn't allow to add new items to it.
I've tried to update the UI at the Completed event of a BackgroundWorker, using Dispatcher, using DispatchTimer... all of this displays the User Control, but the ObservableCollection stays of out reach for adding.
The code that tries to add items to the collection is inside the UserControl.
The exact error is: "This type of CollectionView does not support changes to its SourceCollection from a thread different from the Dispatcher thread"
This does not happen if I don't do the loading in the background.
Thank you for any workaround for this.
By the way, trying to add the items using Dispatcher doesn't work either.
In other words, what I would like to do is to create an object in the UI Thread while being in the background... I know this may sounds silly.
You may have to check which Dispatcher you are using? In your case you could be referring to two different dispatchers.
Also why not use thread safe observable collection?
Usually I will create the objects on my UI thread, then populate them with data obtained from a background thread.
For example,
void async LoadButton_Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
MyCollection = new ObservableCollection<SomeItem>();
// Can also use a BackgroundWorker
var collectionData = await GetCollectionData();
foreach(var item in collectionData)
{
MyCollection.Add(item);
}
}
I'm using C# 5.0 async and await keywords for asynchronous operations, but you can also use a BackgroundWorker that does your background work.
You can also use Dispatcher.BeginInvoke() for some lighter background work (such as copying data into MyCollection), although for heavy work I find it still locks up the UI so I prefer to use background threads.
It is not possible to modify the contents of an ObservableCollection on a separate thread if a view is bound to this collection, instead you can override ObservableCollection and provide support for it and use it across your application.
This sample contains exactly what you want - http://tomlev2.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/wpf-binding-to-an-asynchronous-collection/
When it comes to threads and ui-elements one of the most important rules to follow which may safe you a lot of trouble in the long run is to keep ui-element instantiation on the ui-thread. Surely you can manage that. And if you need to change those objects from another thread you can use the Dispatcher.
(The threading model reference may also be of interest)
Thank you everyone for your help... a guy from MS visited the company (sorry for the commercial annotation) to do other things, I stoled him and show this behavior. In a matter of 2 minutes founds the source of the problem... which I'm not sure to really understand.
It happens that I'm using an ICollectionView to display a sorted/filtered version of my problematic ObservableCollection. I was creating this ICollectionView in the constructor of my class, so at the moment of deserialization it was created in another thread. He suggested to move this creation to a further time in code (when the related property gets read). This solved the problem.
However the ObservableCollection, created in that other thread, now lets me add new item. Not sure why, but now it works.
Sorry for being this late and thank you again.
We've got a Model-View-Presenter setup with our .NET Compact Framework app. A standard CF Form is implementing the view interface, and passed into the constructor of the presenter. the presenter tells the form to show itself by calling view.Run(); the view then does a Show() on itself, and the presenter takes over again, loading up data and populating it into the view.
Problem is that the view does not finishing showing itself before control is returned to the presenter. since the presenter code blocks for a few seconds while loading data, the effect is that the form is not visible for a few seconds. it's not until after the presenter finishes it's data load that the form becomes visible, even though the form called Show() on itself before the presenter started its data loading.
In a standard windows environment, i could use the .Shown event on the form... but compact framework doesn't have this, and I can't find an equivalent.
Does anyone know of an even, a pinvoke, or some other way to get my form to be fully visible before kicking off some code on the presenter? at this point, i'd be ok with the form calling to the presenter and telling the presenter to start it's data load.
FYI - we're trying to avoid multi-threading, to cut down on complexity and resource usage.
The general rule is: never do anything blocking on the UI thread
The UI in Windows (and in Windows CE as well) has an asynchronous nature. Which means that most API calls do not necessarily do whatever they're supposed to do immediately. Instead, they generate a series of events, which are put into the event queue and later retrieved by the event pump, which is, essentially, an infinite loop running on the UI thread, picking events from the queue one by one, and handling them.
From the above, a conclusion can be drawn that if you continue to do something lengthy on the UI thread after requesting a certain action (i.e. showing the window in your case), the event pump cannot proceed with picking events (because you haven't returned control to it), and therefore, your requested action cannot complete.
The general approach is as follows: if you must do complex data transformation/loading/preparing/whatever, do it on a separate thread, and then use Control.BeginInvoke to inject a delegate into the UI thread, and touch the actual UI controls from inside that delegate.
Despite your irrational fear of "complexity" that multithreading brings with it, there is very little to be afraid of. Here's a little example to illustrate the point:
public void ShowUI()
{
theForm = new MyForm();
theForm.Show();
// BeginInvoke() will take a new thread from the thread pool
// and invoke our delegate on that thread
new Action( PrepareData ).BeginInvoke(null,null);
}
public void PrepareData()
{
// Prepare your data, do complex computation, etc.
// Control.BeginInvoke will put our delegate on the UI event queue
// to be retrieved and executed on the UI thread
theForm.BeginInvoke( new Action( PutDataInTheForm ) );
}
public void PutDataInTheForm()
{
theForm.textBox1.Text = "data is ready!";
}
While you may play with alternative solutions, the general idea always remains the same: if you do anything lengthy on the UI thread, your UI will "freeze". It will not even redraw itself as you add new UI elements on the screen, because redrawing is also an asynchronous process.
Therefore, you must do all the complex and long stuff on a separate thread, and only do simple, small, guaranteed to run fast things on the UI thread. There is no other alternative, really.
Hope this helps.
If your key problem is that the form won't paint before your presenter data loading methods are completed, and you have a call to this.Show() in your Form_Load, try putting Application.DoEvents() directly after this.Show() to force/allow the form to paint.
protected void Form_Load(blah blah blah)
{
this.Show();
Application.DoEvents();
... data loading methods ...
}
No need to create another thread if you don't want to (although a couple of seconds have to be dealt with somehow).
You can use the activated event. Because it will fire when the form is activated, you need a boolean local to the form to check wether or not the form has been created for the first time.
Another option for you is to disconnect the event handler right after you finish presenting the form.
I have been trying to get a progressbar set to marquee to keep moving while another function is running. After this function runs, I message would display (for this example)
The only way I was able to get this working was with a background worker and then have a
Do
Loop until condition that runs in the main form until the operation is complete followed by my message box.
This seems like a kludge way to accomplish this and a thread.start followed by a thread.join seems like a much nicer way to fix this. However, I was not able to get that working either.
I have included a small demo program if anyone is interested.
http://www.filedropper.com/progressbar
Thanks
Thread.Start and Thread.Join is not the way to do it - that basically blocks your UI thread again. Application.DoEvents isn't the way to go either - you really do want a separate thread.
You could then use Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke to marshal back to the UI thread, but BackgroundWorker makes all this a lot easier. A search for "BackgroundWorker tutorial" yields lots of hits.
EDIT: To show the message when the worker has finished, use the RunWorkerCompleted event. The ReportProgress method and ProgressChanged event are used to handle updating the progress bar. (The UI subscribes to ProgressChanged, and the task calls ReportProgress periodically.)
That is not a kludge. That is the correct way of doing it; what happens with the BackgroundWorker approach? The trick is to use the ReportProgress method to push the change back to the UI (don't update the ProgressBar from the worker).
Use Application.DoEvents() in your function from time to time so that your process has some time to process his events, including redrawing the form.
Alternatively, you can use a worker thread (like a BackgroundWorker) to process your treatement, while the UI thread is displaying your progress bar.
Complementing the answer given by Marc Gravell, the BackbroundWorker has a boolean property WorkerReportsProgress, if it is set to false, when you call ReportProgress, the program will raise an InvalidOperationException
e.g. in Winforms I'd write...
// on UI Thread
BackgroundWorker workerThread = new BackgroundWorker();
workerThread.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(LoadChildren);
workerThread.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(OnLoadChildrenCompleted);
while (workerThread.IsBusy)
{
Application.DoEvents();
}
In WPF what is the equivalent of Application.DoEvents in Winforms?
I have a property called Children in my ViewModel class. A HierarchicalDataTemplate has been setup to read Items from the Children property.
A TreeView displays the nodes. When the user expands a node, the children of the node are generated from the results of this property
public Node Children
{
get
{
// 1. time-consuming LINQ query to load children from a SQL DB
// 2. return results
}
}
So I'd like to run 1. on a background thread and wait for it to complete before returning the results... keeping the UI responsive.
Googling led me to this page which has uses DispatcherFrames to simulate the above method. But this seems to be too much work.. which hints at 'Am I doing this right?'
As I understand it, you've got this sort of flow:
Do some prep work (UI thread)
Do some background work (other thread)
Do some finishing work (UI thread)
You want to wait for the second bullet to finish before running the code in the third.
The easiest way to do that is make the second bullet's code call back into the UI thread (in the normal way) to trigger the third bullet to execute. If you really, really want to use local variables from the method, you could always use an anonymous method or lambda expression to create the delegate to pass to the background worker - but normally it would be cleaner to just have a "PostBackgroundWork" method or something like that.
EDIT: This wouldn't be nice for a property as you've shown in your edited question, but I'd refactor that as a request to fetch the children with a callback when it's completed. This avoids the whole mess of reentrancy, and makes it clearer what's actually going on.
Calling DoEvents on the UI thread in a loop like this is not recommended practice in WinForms or WPF.
If your application can't continue until this thread has finished its work, then why is it on another thread?
If some parts of your application can continue, then disable those bits that can't and reenable them when your completion callback is called. Let the rest of the system get on with its stuff. No need for the loop with DoEvents in it, this is not good practice.
Take a look at the community content on MSDN.
This is a good article on DoEvents.
In WPF what is the equivalent of Application.DoEvents in Winforms?
There is none built-in, but you can easily write your own. Indeed, WPF gives you more power around message processing than does Winforms. See my blog post on Dispatcher Frames here. It includes an example showing you how to simulate Application.DoEvents().
I'm currently designing/reworking the databinding part of an application that makes heavy use of winforms databinding and updates coming from a background thread (once a second on > 100 records).
Let's assume the application is a stock trading application, where a background thread monitors for data changes and putting them onto the data objects. These objects are stored in a BindingList<> and implement INotifyPropertyChanged to propagate the changes via databinding to the winforms controls.
Additionally the data objects are currently marshalling the changes via WinformsSynchronizationContext.Send to the UI thread.
The user is able to enter some of the values in the UI, which means that some values can be changed from both sides. And the user values shouldn't be overritten by updates.
So there are several question coming to my mind:
Is there a general design-guildline how to do that (background updates in databinding)?
When and how to marshal on the UI thread?
What is the best way of the background thread to interact with
binding/data objects?
Which classes/Interfaces should be used? (BindingSource, ...)
...
The UI doesn't really know that there is a background thread, that updates the control, and as of my understanding in databinding scenarios the UI shouldn't know where the data is coming from... You can think of the background thread as something that pushes data to the UI, so I'm not sure if the backgroundworker is the option I'm searching for.
Sometimes you want to get some UI response during an operation in the data-/business object (e.g. setting the background during recalculations). Raising a propertychanged on a status property which is bound to the background isn't enough, as the control get's repainted after the calculation has finished? My idea would be to hook on the propertychanged event and call .update() on the control...
Any other ideas about that?
This is a hard problem since most “solutions” lead to lots of custom code and lots of calls to BeginInvoke() or System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker (which itself is just a thin wrapper over BeginInvoke).
In the past, I've also found that you soon wish to delay sending your INotifyPropertyChanged events until the data is stable. The code that handles one propriety-changed event often needs to read other proprieties. You also often have a control that needs to redraw itself whenever the state of one of many properties changes, and you don’t wan the control to redraw itself too often.
Firstly, each custom WinForms control should read all data it needs to paint itself in the PropertyChanged event handler, so it does not need to lock any data objects when it was a WM_PAINT (OnPaint) message. The control should not immediately repaint itself when it gets new data; instead, it should call Control.Invalidate(). Windows will combine the WM_PAINT messages into as few requests as possible and only send them when the UI thread has nothing else to do. This minimizes the number of redraws and the time the data objects are locked. (Standard controls mostly do this with data binding anyway)
The data objects need to record what has changed as the changes are made, then once a set of changes has been completed, “kick” the UI thread into calling the SendChangeEvents method that then calls the PropertyChanged event handler (on the UI thread) for all properties that have changed. While the SendChangeEvents() method is running, the data objects must be locked to stop the background thread(s) from updating them.
The UI thread can be “kicked” with a call to BeginInvoke whenever a set of update have bean read from the database. Often it is better to have the UI thread poll using a timer, as Windows only sends the WM_TIMER message when the UI message queue is empty, hence leading to the UI feeling more responsive.
Also consider not using data binding at all, and having the UI ask each data object “what has changed” each time the timer fires. Databinding always looks nice, but can quickly become part of the problem, rather then part of the solution.
As locking/unlock of the data-objects is a pain and may not allow the updates to be read from the database fast enough, you may wish to pass the UI thread a (virtual) copy of the data objects. Having the data object be persistent/immutable so that any changes to the data object return a new data object rather than changing the current data object can enable this.
Persistent objects sound very slow, but need not be, see this and that for some pointers. Also look at this and that on Stack Overflow.
Also have a look at retlang - Message-based concurrency in .NET. Its message batching may be useful.
(For WPF, I would have a View-Model that sets in the UI thread that was then updated in ‘batches’ from the multi-threaded model by the background thread. However, WPF is a lot better at combining data binding events then WinForms.)
Yes all the books show threaded structures and invokes etc. Which is perfectly correct etc, but it can be a pain to code, and often hard to organise so you can make decent tests for it
A UI only needs to be refreshed so many times a second, so performance is never an issue, and polling will work fine
I like to use a object graph that is being continuously updated by a pool of background threads. They check for actual changes in data values and when they notice an actual change they update a version counter on the root of the object graph (or on each main item whatever makes more sense) and updates the values
Then your foreground process can have a timer (same as UI thread by default) to fire once a second or so and check the version counter, and if it changes, locks it (to stop partial updates) and then refreshes the display
This simple technique totally isolates the UI thread from the background threads
There is an MSDN article specific on that topic. But be prepared to look at VB.NET. ;)
Additionally maybe you could use System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker, instead of a generic second thread, since it nicely formalize the kind of interaction with the spawned background thread you are describing. The example given in the MSDN library is pretty decent, so go look at it for a hint on how to use it.
Edit:
Please note: No marshalling is required if you use the ProgressChanged event to communicate back to the UI thread. The background thread calls ReportProgress whenever it has the need to communicate with the UI. Since it is possible to attach any object to that event there is no reason to do manual marshalling. The progress is communicated via another async operation - so there is no need to worry about neither how fast the UI can handle the progress events nor if the background thread gets interruped by waiting for the event to finish.
If you prove that the background thread is raising the progress changed event way too fast then you might want to look at Pull vs. Push models for UI updates an excellent article by Ayende.
I just fought a similar situation - badkground thread updating the UI via BeginInvokes. The background has a delay of 10ms on every loop, but down the road I ran into problems where the UI updates which sometimes get fired every time on that loop, can't keep up with teh freq of updates, and the app effectively stops working (not sure what happens- blew a stack?).
I wound up adding a flag in the object passed over the invoke, which was just a ready flag. I'd set this to false before calling the invoke, and then the bg thread would do no more ui updates until this flag is toggled back to true. The UI thread would do it's screen updates etc, and then set this var to true.
This allowed the bg thread to keep crunching, but allowed the ui to shut off the flow until it was ready for more.
Create a new UserControl, add your control and format it (maybe dock = fill) and add a property.
now configure the property to invoke the usercontrol and update your element, each time you change the property form any thread you want!
thats my solution:
private long value;
public long Value
{
get { return this.value; }
set
{
this.value = value;
UpdateTextBox();
}
}
private delegate void Delegate();
private void UpdateTextBox()
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke(new Delegate(UpdateTextBox), new object[] {});
}
else
{
textBox1.Text = this.value.ToString();
}
}
on my form i bind my view
viewTx.DataBindings.Add(new Binding("Value", ptx.CounterTX, "ReturnValue"));
This is a problem that I solved in Update Controls. I bring this up not to suggest you rewrite your code, but to give you some source to look at for ideas.
The technique that I used in WPF was to use Dispatcher.BeginInvoke to notify the foreground thread of a change. You can do the same thing in Winforms with Control.BeginInvoke. Unfortunately, you have to pass a reference to a Form object into your data object.
Once you do, you can pass an Action into BeginInvoke that fires PropertyChanged. For example:
_form.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => NotifyPropertyChanged(propertyName))) );
You will need to lock the properties in your data object to make them thread-safe.
This post is old but I thought I'd give options to others. It seems once you start doing async programming and Windows Forms databinding you end up with problems updating Bindingsource datasource or updating lists bound to windows forms control. I am going to try using Jeffrey Richters AsyncEnumerator class from his powerthreading tools on wintellect.
Reason:
1. His AsyncEnumerator class automatically marshals background threads to UI threads so you can update controls as you would doing Synchronous code.
2. AsyncEnumerator simplifies Async programming. It does this automatically, so you write your code in a Synchronous fashion, but the code is still running in an asynchronous fashion.
Jeffrey Richter has a video on Channel 9 MSDN, that explains AsyncEnumerator.
Wish me luck.
-R
I am late to the party but I believe this is still a valid question.
I would advise you to avoid using data binding at all and use Observable objects instead.
The reason is, data binding looks cool and when implemented the code looks good, but data binding miserably fails when there is lot os asynchronous UI update or multi-threading as in your case.
I have personally experienced this problem with asynchronous and Databinding in prod, we even didn't detect it in testing, when users started using all different scenarios things started to break down.