views:

17446

answers:

11

What is the simplest way to update an label from another thread?

My problem: I have a winform(thread1), from that I'm starting another thread(thread2). While thread2 is processing some files I would like to update a label on the winform, with status from thread2.

How can I do that?

+3  A: 

You'll have to make sure that the update happens on the correct thread; the UI thread. In order to do this, you'll have to Invoke the event-handler instead of calling it directly.

You can do this by raising your event like this:

(The code is typed here out of my head, so I haven't checked for correct syntax etc..., but it should get you going)

if( MyEvent != null )
{
   Delegate[] eventHandlers = MyEvent.GetInvocationList();

   foreach( Delegate d in eventHandlers )
   {
      // Check whether the target of the delegate implements 
      // ISynchronizeInvoke (Winforms controls do), and see
      // if a context-switch is required.
      ISynchronizeInvoke target = d.Target as ISynchronizeInvoke;

      if( target != null && target.InvokeRequired )
      {
         target.Invoke (d, ... );
      }
      else
      {
          d.DynamicInvoke ( ... );
      }
   }
}

Note that the code above will not work on WPF projects, since WPF controls do not implement the ISynchronizeInvoke interface.
In order to make sure that the code above works with WinForms & WPF, and all other platforms, you can have a look at the AsyncOperation, AsyncOperationManager and SynchronizationContext classes.

In order to easily raise events this way, I've created an extension method, which allows me to simplify raising an event by just calling :

MyEvent.Raise ( this, EventArgs.Empty);

Offcourse, you can also make use of the BackGroundWorker class, which will abstract this matter for you. :)

Frederik Gheysels
Great solution. Little more complicated than the simple way, but with the extension method it gets trivial to use the code. +1.
OregonGhost
Indeed, but I don't like to 'clutter' my GUI code with this matter. My GUI shouldn't care whether it needs to Invoke or not.In other words: i don't think that it is the responsability of the GUI to perform the context-swithc.
Frederik Gheysels
+1, thanks i wondered how to do this.
Hath
Breaking the delegate apart etc seems overkill - why not just: SynchronizationContext.Current.Send(delegate { MyEvent(...); }, null);
Marc Gravell
Do you always have access to the SynchronizationContext ? Even if your class is in a class lib ?
Frederik Gheysels
+3  A: 

The simple solution is to use Control.Invoke.

void DoSomething()
{
    if (InvokeRequired) {
        Invoke(new MethodInvoker(DoSomething));
    } else {
        // Do Something
    }
}
OregonGhost
+1  A: 

You'll need to Invoke the method on the GUI thread. You can do that by calling Control.Invoke.

For example:

delegate void UpdateLabelDelegate (string message);

void UpdateLabel (string message)
{
    if (InvokeRequired)
    {
         Invoke (new UpdateLabelDelegate (UpdateLabel), message);
         return;
    }

    MyLabelControl.Text = message;
}
Kieron
The invoke line gives me a compiler error. The best overloaded method match for 'System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke(System.Delegate, object[])' has some invalid arguments
CruelIO
+17  A: 

The simplest way is an anonymous method:

///...blah blah updating files
string newText = "abc"; // running on worker thread
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate {
    someLabel.Text = newText; // runs on UI thread
});
///...blah blah more updating files
Marc Gravell
But, then your processing function must be a member method of your GUI form ?
Frederik Gheysels
Seeing as the OP hasn't mentioned any class/instance *except* the form, that isn't a bad default...
Marc Gravell
+1 Defiinitely the "simplest"
Rashmi Pandit
Don't forget the "this" keyword is referencing a "Control" class.
AZ
A: 

Doesn't .net 2.0+ have the BackgroundWorker class just for this. It UI thread aware.

  1. Create a BackgroundWorker
  2. Add two delegates (one for processing, and one for completion)
Preet Sangha
+2  A: 

this is the classic way you should do this:

using System;
using System.Windows.Forms;
using System.Threading;

namespace Test
{
    public partial class UIThread : Form
    {
        Worker worker;

        Thread workerThread;

        public UIThread()
        {
            InitializeComponent();

            worker = new Worker();
            worker.ProgressChanged += new EventHandler<ProgressChangedArgs>(OnWorkerProgressChanged);
            workerThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(worker.StartWork));
            workerThread.Start();
        }

        private void OnWorkerProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedArgs e)
        {
            //cross thread - so you don't get the cross theading exception
            if (this.InvokeRequired)
            {
                this.BeginInvoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
                {
                    OnWorkerProgressChanged(sender, e);
                });
                return;
            } 

            //change control
            this.label1.Text = e.Progress;
        }
    }

    public class Worker
    {
        public event EventHandler<ProgressChangedArgs> ProgressChanged;

        protected void OnProgressChanged(ProgressChangedArgs e)
        {
            if(ProgressChanged!=null)
            {
                ProgressChanged(this,e);
            }
        }

        public void StartWork()
        {
            Thread.Sleep(100);
            OnProgressChanged(new ProgressChangedArgs("Progress Changed"));
            Thread.Sleep(100);
        }
    }


    public class ProgressChangedArgs : EventArgs 
    {
        public string Progress {get;private set;}
        public ProgressChangedArgs(string progress)
        {
            Progress = progress;
        }
    }
}

you worker thread has an event. your ui thread starts of another thread to do the work and hooks up that worker event so you can display the state of the worker thread.

then in ui you need to cross threads to change the actual control.. like a label or a progress bar.

Hath
In the InvokeRequired block, do you want to return after the call to BeginInvoke? So you don't fall through and end up trying to set label1.Text on the wrong thread anyway?
Eric
Ah yes, must of forgot to put it in.
Hath
+28  A: 

For .NET 2.0, here's a nice bit of code I wrote that does exactly what you want, and works for any property on a Control:

private delegate void SetControlPropertyThreadSafeDelegate(Control control, string propertyName, object propertyValue);

public static void SetControlPropertyThreadSafe(Control control, string propertyName, object propertyValue)
{
  if (control.InvokeRequired)
  {
    control.Invoke(new SetControlPropertyThreadSafeDelegate(SetControlPropertyThreadSafe), new object[] { control, propertyName, propertyValue });
  }
  else
  {
    control.GetType().InvokeMember(propertyName, BindingFlags.SetProperty, null, control, new object[] { propertyValue });
  }
}

Call it like this:

// thread-safe equivalent of
// myLabel.Text = status;
SetControlPropertyThreadSafe(myLabel, "Text", status);

If you're using .NET 3.0 or above, you could rewrite the above method as an extension method of the Control class, which would then simplify the call to:

myLabel.SetPropertyThreadSafe("Text", status);

UPDATE 05/10/2010:

For .NET 3.0 you should use this code:

private delegate void SetPropertyThreadSafeDelegate<TResult>(Control @this, Expression<Func<TResult>> property, TResult value);

public static void SetPropertyThreadSafe<TResult>(this Control @this, Expression<Func<TResult>> property, TResult value)
{
  var propertyInfo = (property.Body as MemberExpression).Member as PropertyInfo;

  if (propertyInfo == null ||
      propertyInfo.ReflectedType != @this.GetType() ||
      @this.GetType().GetProperty(propertyInfo.Name, propertyInfo.PropertyType) == null)
  {
    throw new ArgumentException("The lambda expression 'property' must reference a valid property on this Control.");
  }

  if (@this.InvokeRequired)
  {
    @this.Invoke(new SetPropertyThreadSafeDelegate<TResult>(SetPropertyThreadSafe), new object[] { @this, propertyInfo.Name, value });
  }
  else
  {
    @this.GetType().InvokeMember(propertyInfo.Name, BindingFlags.SetProperty, null, @this, new object[] { value });
  }
}

which uses LINQ and lambda expressions to allow much cleaner, simpler and safer syntax:

myLabel.SetPropertyThreadSafe(() => myLabel.Text, status); // status has to be a string or this will fail to compile

Not only is the property name now checked at compile time, the property's type is as well, so it's impossible to (for example) assign a string value to a boolean property, and hence cause a runtime exception.

Unfortunately this doesn't stop anyone from doing stupid things such as passing in another Control's property and value, so the following will happily compile:

myLabel.SetPropertyThreadSafe(() => aForm.ShowIcon, false);

Hence I added the runtime checks to ensure that the passed-in property does actually belong to the Control that the method's being called on. Not perfect, but still a lot better than the .NET 2.0 version.

If anyone has any further suggestions on how to improve this code for compile-time safety, please comment!

Ian Kemp
A: 

For many purposes it's as simple as this:

public delegate void serviceGUIDelegate();
private void updateGUI()
{
  this.Invoke(new serviceGUIDelegate(serviceGUI));
}

"serviceGUI()" is a GUI level method within the form (this) that can change as many controls as you want. Call "updateGUI()" from the other thread. Parameters can be added to pass values, or (probably faster) use class scope variables with locks on them as required if there is any possibility of a clash between threads accessing them that could cause instability. Use BeginInvoke instead of Invoke if the non-GUI thread is time critical (keeping Brian Gideon's warning in mind).

Frankg
A: 

Because of the triviality of the scenario I would actually have the UI thread poll for the status. I think you will find that it can be quite elegant.

public class MyForm : Form
{
  private volatile string m_Text = "";
  private System.Timers.Timer m_Timer;

  private MyForm()
  {
    m_Timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
    m_Timer.SynchronizingObject = this;
    m_Timer.Interval = 1000;
    m_Timer.Elapsed += (s, a) => { MyProgressLabel.Text = m_Text; };
    m_Timer.Start();
    var thread = new Thread(WorkerThread);
    thread.Start();
  }

  private void WorkerThread()
  {
    while (...)
    {
      // Periodically publish progress information.
      m_Text = "Still working...";
    }
  }
}

The approach avoids the marshaling operation required when using the ISynchronizeInvoke.Invoke and ISynchronizeInvoke.BeginInvoke methods. There is nothing wrong with using the marshaling technique, but there are a couple of caveats you need to be aware of.

  • Make sure you do not call BeginInvoke too frequently or it could overrun the message pump.
  • Calling Invoke on the worker thread is a blocking call. It will temporarily halt the work being done in that thread.

The stategy I propose in this answer reverses the communication roles of the threads. Instead of the worker thread pushing the data the UI thread polls for it. This a common pattern used in many scenarios. Since all you are wanting to do is display progress information from the worker thread then I think you will find that this solution is a great alternative to the marshaling solution.

Brian Gideon
+1  A: 

Another option is to use the BackgroundWorker class's ReportProgress method. Usually, you just report a percentage complete, but there's another overload that includes a state object. Here's an example that just reports a string object:

    private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
    {
        backgroundWorker1.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
        backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync();
    }

    private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
    {
        Thread.Sleep(5000);
        backgroundWorker1.ReportProgress(0, "A");
        Thread.Sleep(5000);
        backgroundWorker1.ReportProgress(0, "B");
        Thread.Sleep(5000);
        backgroundWorker1.ReportProgress(0, "C");
    }

    private void backgroundWorker1_ProgressChanged(
        object sender, 
        ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
    {
        label1.Text = e.UserState.ToString();
    }

That's fine if you always want to update the same field. If you've got more complicated updates to make, you could define a class to represent the UI state and pass it to the ReportProgress method.

One final thing, be sure to set the WorkerReportsProgress flag, or the ReportProgress method will be completely ignored.

Don Kirkby
A: 

Fire and forget extension method for .NET 3.5+

using System;
using System.Windows.Forms;

public static class ControlExtensions
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Executes the Action asynchronously on the UI thread, does not block execution on the calling thread.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="control"></param>
    /// <param name="code"></param>
    public static void UIThread(this Control @this, Action code)
    {
        if (@this.InvokeRequired)
        {
            @this.BeginInvoke(code);
        }
        else
        {
            code.Invoke();
        }
    }
}

This can be called using the following line of code:

this.UIThread(() => this.myLabel.Text = "Text Goes Here");
StyxRiver