Thread.Suspend and Thread.Resume in Framework 2.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buddy Home
  • Start date Start date
B

Buddy Home

Hello,

I want to understand whats the best way to write code to replace
Thread.Suspend, Thread.Resume and Thread.Abort.

I have lots of code calling these existing methods and want to minimize the
risk of changing the code everywhere so here is what I think I could do,
which is to create my own ThreadWrapper class which inherits from Thread and
which has these three methods already defined but does it a different way
and then my original code can work as normal by just referencing my
ThreadWrapper class.

Example

public class ThreadWrapper : Thread
{
public void Abort()
{
// What do i do here
}
public void Suspend()
{
// What do i do here
}
public void Resume()
{
// What do i do here
}
}

My App
public class Test
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadWrapper tw = new ThreadWrapper();
...
tw.Suspend();
tw.Resume();
tw.Abort();
}
}


Thanks,
 
Why do you need to suspend and resume threads in your app? Could that be a
sign of poor engineering? Please explain.
Click to expand...

While "suspending" a thread in the traditional manner has been deprecated by
MSFT, "pausing" a thread between atomic operations (under the developer's
control) is certainly a legitimate requirement :)
 
Larry Smith said:
While "suspending" a thread in the traditional manner has been deprecated
by MSFT, "pausing" a thread between atomic operations (under the
developer's control) is certainly a legitimate requirement :)
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really legit - if I were to see code that was manually
freezing and thawing threads, I would kick it back to the developer and tell
him to re-write it. He would have to come back with a VERY strong reason why
he's doing it.

The standard thread synchronization mechanisms are pretty rich - monitor /
mutes / semaphore / rwlock / event / Interlocked. Other than debugging
scenarios, I don't see the need to externally start/stop threads very often.
 
Hi

I do not see any advantage of moving start, stop, suspend, resume a
thread to a separate class. They are in a single class already and are
static.... what else you need..

Thanks
-Srinivas.
 
I don't think that's really legit - if I were to see code that was
manually freezing and thawing threads, I would kick it back to the
developer and tell him to re-write it. He would have to come back with a
VERY strong reason why he's doing it.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I don't work for you :)
The standard thread synchronization mechanisms are pretty rich - monitor /
mutes / semaphore / rwlock / event / Interlocked. Other than debugging
scenarios, I don't see the need to externally start/stop threads very
often.
Click to expand...

Of course you apply proper synchronization techniques when required. And you
certainly don't pause a thread as a means of synchronization. You use one of
the techniques you cited. If a user clicks the "Cancel" button to abort a
background operation however (for example), and you then display a "confirm
cancellation" dialog for the user, normally you'll want to signal a "pause"
event so the background thread can temporarily suspend itself until the user
exits the dialog (the thread will respect the "pause" event by periodically
testing for it).
 
Let me get my point out.

I'm aware that it's bad design to suspend and pause the thread but I've got
a task to convert the code from Framework 1.0 to 2.0 and I was trying to get
rid of all the obsolete warning messages in the code. There are approx 200
warnings which call Suspend, Resume and Abort methods of the thread class. I
don't really have the time in my project plan to rewrite all this code so I
was looking for a generic approx which is why I showed the snippet code in
my original post.

Thanks,

Peter Bromberg said:
Why do you need to suspend and resume threads in your app? Could that be a
sign of poor engineering? Please explain.
Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




Buddy Home said:
Hello,

I want to understand whats the best way to write code to replace
Thread.Suspend, Thread.Resume and Thread.Abort.

I have lots of code calling these existing methods and want to minimize
the
risk of changing the code everywhere so here is what I think I could do,
which is to create my own ThreadWrapper class which inherits from Thread
and
which has these three methods already defined but does it a different way
and then my original code can work as normal by just referencing my
ThreadWrapper class.

Example

public class ThreadWrapper : Thread
{
public void Abort()
{
// What do i do here
}
public void Suspend()
{
// What do i do here
}
public void Resume()
{
// What do i do here
}
}

My App
public class Test
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadWrapper tw = new ThreadWrapper();
...
tw.Suspend();
tw.Resume();
tw.Abort();
}
}


Thanks,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Let me get my point out.

I'm aware that it's bad design to suspend and pause the thread but I've got
a task to convert the code from Framework 1.0 to 2.0 and I was trying to get
rid of all the obsolete warning messages in the code. There are approx 200
warnings which call Suspend, Resume and Abort methods of the thread class. I
don't really have the time in my project plan to rewrite all this code so I
was looking for a generic approx which is why I showed the snippet code in
my original post.

Thanks,
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Suggestion about Thread.Suspend() and Thread.Resume() 1
Thread.Suspend() 2
thread.abort and thread.suspend 1
Thread.Suspend and Thread.Resume replacments? 2
call property of a subclase using referenc of baseclase 0
Thread.Suspend() 6
IDbConnection, IDbTransaction and Repository 3
2.0 Threads, Join() and Invoke 3

Back
Top