Safe multithreading in ASP.Net

[who be dat?]

Re: Safe multithreading in ASP.Net

Thanks fellas. I'm avoiding multithreading in my app.

Chris Smith

"Scott Allen" <bitmask@[nospam].fred.net> wrote in message
news:g1s7h0litu auoe073dv2o1sco dru7vqlk4@4ax.c om...[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> >All due respect, but this is not something which should be attempted by
> >anyone who does not consider himself an expert. And all due respect to
> >"Visual Studio Magazine", but nobody should ever put risky code into
> >production based on one of their articles. This kind of disjointed,[/color][/color]
fluffy[color=blue][color=green]
> >article is why I let my one and only subscription to that magazine lapse.
> >Among other faults, the article skims over teaching about[/color][/color]
synchronization ,[color=blue][color=green]
> >and says nothing at all about what the extra thread can and cannot touch.[/color]
>
> Agreed! Articles like this run a good chance of starting more problems
> than it solves.
>
> --s
> --
> Scott
> http://www.OdeToCode.com[/color]

[Joe Fallon]

Re: Safe multithreading in ASP.Net

I use Rick Strahl's SMTP class to send e-mails out asynchronously.
It works great.

The end user gets to continue navigating *immedialtely* while a


--
Joe Fallon



"who be dat?" <whatever@dot.c om> wrote in message
news:10h7mf9pc4 kvj94@corp.supe rnews.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Chris R. Timmons" <crtimmons@X_NO SPAM_Xcrtimmons inc.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns953D3E0 7845EDcrtimmons crtimmonsin@207 .46.248.16...[color=green]
> > "who be dat?" <whatever@dot.c om> wrote in
> > news:10h5vp3huj p9452@corp.supe rnews.com:
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Do you really want to start a new thread for each application
> > instance? Or do you just want a maximum of one thread running as
> > long as there is at least one application instance running?
> >
> > Maybe you could also tell us more about the functional requirements
> > of your app. Do users log into/out of your app? If so, when do you
> > want the thread(s) to run - when the app starts or when the first
> > user logs in? If users are required to log in, then maybe you could
> > shut down the thread(s) when the user logs out, instead of when the
> > app ends.
> >
> > --
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Chris.[/color]
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm writing a bulletinboard application in order to learn ASP.Net. I've[/color]
got[color=blue]
> it going pretty good. You can see it at http://www.dotnetforum.net as a
> matter of fact if you'd like. I'm now adding a new feature on my machine[/color]
at[color=blue]
> home. Once this feature is fully implemented and debugged, I will[/color]
transfer[color=blue]
> the update to the previously mentioned website. This feature will email
> users when someone responds to a topic the user is watching letting that
> user know someone has responded to a topic and provide a link the user can
> click on to view the topic in their web browser. This is feature is[/color]
fairly[color=blue]
> typical among such applications.
>
> I could just run through the code to send the emails to users everytime a
> user responds which after my experiment in multi-threading I'm considering
> doing. However, I was concerned about performance on a busy website.
> Everytime a user responds, the code will look through the tables, figure[/color]
out[color=blue]
> all the emails it needs to send, and send all the emails. Not to bad if[/color]
one[color=blue]
> or two users are online at once responding away. But, I became concerned
> about performance when there would be a large number of users online
> responding multiple times. The site would go through the email routine
> every time a large amount of users responded to the site. When a single
> user responds, that user might spawn a lot of emails to be sent out which
> means they would have to wait till the emails were sent if there are a lot
> people watching a particular topic. Add in the fact lots of people could[/color]
be[color=blue]
> responding at the same time and it could hurt website performance not to
> mention individual users might notice the wait as the data was retrieved[/color]
and[color=blue]
> emails were sent. They would have to wait for those actions to complete
> till they could move in the website. I thought I could help the site out[/color]
by[color=blue]
> creating a thread that ran in the background. The thread would search the
> tables, send out the emails it needed to, then sleep for X amount of[/color]
minutes[color=blue]
> where X is determined by an app setting value in web.config. It's working
> great. Problem is, the dang thread never terminates.
>
> What you think about this? I suppose I could just write a thread like the
> following:
>
> Dim ThreadNotify as Thread 'declared in a code module as a public object[/color]
to[color=blue]
> be accessed anywhere
>
> When user responds the message is posted then this bit of code is[/color]
executed:[color=blue]
>
> .
> .
> .
> ThreadNotify = New Thread(New ThreadStart(Add ressOf EmailNotify))
> ThreadNotify.St art()
> .
> .
>
> .
>
> Public Sub EmailNotify()
>
> Dim emails As New ForumEmail
>
> Do
>
> emails.EmailNot ify()
>
> End Sub
>
>
>
> Thing is, everytime someone responds a new thread will be created. But,
> once the code for emailnotify reached the end sub statement, the thread
> would terminate, right? I'd rather not create a thread everytime someone
> responds but at least the grunt work would get done in another process and
> hopefully the user won't notice it.
>
>
>
> Can you think of a better way to do this? Thanks!
>
> Chris Smith
>
>
>
>[/color]