C# Events and Thread Safety

前端 未结 15 1340
甜味超标
甜味超标 2020-11-22 06:00

UPDATE

As of C# 6, the answer to this question is:

SomeEvent?.Invoke(this, e);

I frequently hear/read the fo

15条回答
  •  忘了有多久
    2020-11-22 06:08

    Wire all your events at construction and leave them alone. The design of the Delegate class cannot possibly handle any other usage correctly, as I will explain in the final paragraph of this post.

    First of all, there's no point in trying to intercept an event notification when your event handlers must already make a synchronized decision about whether/how to respond to the notification.

    Anything that may be notified, should be notified. If your event handlers are properly handling the notifications (i.e. they have access to an authoritative application state and respond only when appropriate), then it will be fine to notify them at any time and trust they will respond properly.

    The only time a handler shouldn't be notified that an event has occurred, is if the event in fact hasn't occurred! So if you don't want a handler to be notified, stop generating the events (i.e. disable the control or whatever is responsible for detecting and bringing the event into existence in the first place).

    Honestly, I think the Delegate class is unsalvageable. The merger/transition to a MulticastDelegate was a huge mistake, because it effectively changed the (useful) definition of an event from something that happens at a single instant in time, to something that happens over a timespan. Such a change requires a synchronization mechanism that can logically collapse it back into a single instant, but the MulticastDelegate lacks any such mechanism. Synchronization should encompass the entire timespan or instant the event takes place, so that once an application makes the synchronized decision to begin handling an event, it finishes handling it completely (transactionally). With the black box that is the MulticastDelegate/Delegate hybrid class, this is near impossible, so adhere to using a single-subscriber and/or implement your own kind of MulticastDelegate that has a synchronization handle that can be taken out while the handler chain is being used/modified. I'm recommending this, because the alternative would be to implement synchronization/transactional-integrity redundantly in all your handlers, which would be ridiculously/unnecessarily complex.

提交回复
热议问题