I'm having a problem with handling an event on a different thread from where it is raised. The object that is handling the event is not an UI object however, so I can't use Invoke to execute the delegate and automatically switch to the UI thread for event handling.
The situation is as following: I have an MDI application containing multiple forms. Each form has it's own controller class that handles communication between the coupled form and external objects. All forms are either overview or detail forms (e.g. ContactsOverview & ContactDetail) and share the same data.
In the situation where the error occurs the forms appear in a wizard-like sequence, say a detail form is followed by an overview form. In the detail form data used on the following overview form is changed and before switching to the overview form these changes need to be reflected there. An event is raised from the detail form and handled by the controller for the overview form which does the necessary updating of UI elements.
Now the saving of the changed data in the detail form can take a while so it is necessary that the UI remains responsive and other parts of the application can still be used. This is why a backgroundworker is started to handle this. When the data is saved the event is raised on the background thread. The controller for the overview handles this but when the UI needs to be update there are of course cross-thread exceptions.
So what I need is a way to raise the event on the UI thread, but since the handling doesn't happen on a UI element there's no way to switch threads automatically using Invoke.
From searching around the web I've found one possible solution which is using the producer/consumer pattern. But this would require each controller to listen to a queue of events in a separate thread as far as I understand. Since it's an MDI application there could theoretically be any number of forms with controllers and I don't want to be starting up that many threads.
Any suggestions are welcome. If there would be a way to avoid using the backgroundworker alltogether that would be a suitable solution as well.
Thanks for reading,
Kevin