Want to win a PS4? Go Premium and enter to win our High-Tech Treats giveaway. Enter to Win

x
?
Solved

Using SyncLock to control access to a hastable

Posted on 2012-03-14
6
Medium Priority
?
945 Views
Last Modified: 2012-08-13
Hi, I have the following code

Dim htb as hashtable = htbTrades.Clone
htbTrades.Clear

Open in new window


In this example htbTrades is a hashtable that is declared as a global variable and can be added to by other threads.  I want to make sure that no items can be added to the htbTrades hashtable between the Clone and Clear operations.  Is SyncLock what I should be using.  Will the following achieve my objective.

Dim htb as hashtable
SyncLock htbTrades.SyncRoot
        htb = htbTrades.Clone
        htbTrades.Clear()
End SyncLock

Open in new window


Thanks
0
Comment
Question by:nicksbell
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 3
  • 2
6 Comments
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:lojk
ID: 37720401
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.hashtable.clone.aspx

Well - yes and no. It will only shallow copy the hashtable so a lot depends on what you are containing in the hashtable. Heres the best way i can explain that...

Imagine you have 10 cups on a table and each cup is connected to a Keyring via a peice of string. Cloning the hashtable merely adds another keyring and another 10 peices of string connected to the original cups.  If you want 10 more cups, then i think you may need to CopyTo instead.

If you are only storing value types (and/or strings) it should work fine but if you are using it to hold instances of complex types/classes you might need to check what you are trying to acheive is actually working correctly.
0
 
LVL 86

Accepted Solution

by:
Mike Tomlinson earned 1000 total points
ID: 37720565
You'd also have to place all ADDS to that HashTable within a similar SyncLock block.
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:lojk
ID: 37720642
I'm with idlemind - in fact i wouldn't even expose it is a global variable at all rather a private one with a readonly property and a few public methods to proxy access to it (AddToHash, CopyHash etc) with the synclocks in place in there.
0
VIDEO: THE CONCERTO CLOUD FOR HEALTHCARE

Modern healthcare requires a modern cloud. View this brief video to understand how the Concerto Cloud for Healthcare can help your organization.

 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:nicksbell
ID: 37720768
Thanks for your replies.

lokj, re my first comment, my issue is not with the Clone method.  I know that works for what I am trying to do as I already have that in production.  I simply want to make sure that no items can be added to the hashtable after Clone and before Clear, as then they would be lost altogether.  I am not worried about the underlying objects contained in the hashtable as they are static and are never updated, only new ones are added.

Idle_mind, ok, I didn't realise that but that makes sense.

lokj, just to clarify, are you suggesting I create a class that inherits the hashtable class and then expose a public AddToHash method (which would handle the synclock) and all other code would call AddToHash?  I guess that makes a lot of sense too as it stops the need for synclocks all over the place.
0
 
LVL 9

Assisted Solution

by:lojk
lojk earned 1000 total points
ID: 37721120
not explicity saying an inherited class here more just a couple of helper methods in the global module to manage the utilisation of Idleminds point but i was going to suggest it and avoided it for simplicity reasons.

I think i would just create a Shared Class (module - not getting into that discussion now) with an private instance of the hashtable  and Get,Add,Delete,Clone,Clear methods that all implement the sync methods - it would always be fairly thread safe then.

MySafeHashTable.AddNewItem("key",Item);
Item = MySafeHashTable.GetItem("key");
MySafeHashTable.FlushAll();

The knock-on benefit to this approach would be by removing that global hash , you'd also weed out all those instances in your code where it's used allowing a nice simple hit list of places to change to the new methods.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Closing Comment

by:nicksbell
ID: 37721344
Thanks, very useful
0

Featured Post

Important Lessons on Recovering from Petya

In their most recent webinar, Skyport Systems explores ways to isolate and protect critical databases to keep the core of your company safe from harm.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Creating an analog clock UserControl seems fairly straight forward.  It is, after all, essentially just a circle with several lines in it!  Two common approaches for rendering an analog clock typically involve either manually calculating points with…
It was really hard time for me to get the understanding of Delegates in C#. I went through many websites and articles but I found them very clumsy. After going through those sites, I noted down the points in a easy way so here I am sharing that unde…
Are you ready to place your question in front of subject-matter experts for more timely responses? With the release of Priority Question, Premium Members, Team Accounts and Qualified Experts can now identify the emergent level of their issue, signal…
This lesson discusses how to use a Mainform + Subforms in Microsoft Access to find and enter data for payments on orders. The sample data comes from a custom shop that builds and sells movable storage structures that are delivered to your property. …

609 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question