basic question about NetworkStream( read/write, multiple thread)

[Ryan Liu]

Hi, I have some basic question about NetworkStream, can someone explain to
me? Thanks a lot in advance!

TcpClient has a GetStream() method return a NetworkStream for read and
write.

I remember there are 2 streams in Java, one for read, one for write.

If I just use synchronous Read() and Write() method:

If I have two threads, one reads, and another writes to the stream, and I
don't use any lock mechanism, will read/write operations overlap and
conflict each other, and raise exception? Or it internally has a way to
gurantee the safety?


And if I have two write threads, and there is no lock mechanism, will two
write operations interfere each other, and the receiver get mixed data?

If I use BeginRead(), BeginWrite() asynchronously in multiple threads, will
that solve the problems above(if any)? And is it safe not to use my own
lock mechanism in asynchronous mode?

Thanks again!
Ryan Liu
Thanks a lot!

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: basic question about NetworkStream( read/write, multiple thread)

Ryan Liu wrote:

TcpClient has a GetStream() method return a NetworkStream for read and
write.
>
I remember there are 2 streams in Java, one for read, one for write.

You can use the same Stream for both read and write.

If I just use synchronous Read() and Write() method:
>
If I have two threads, one reads, and another writes to the stream, and I
don't use any lock mechanism, will read/write operations overlap and
conflict each other, and raise exception? Or it internally has a way to
gurantee the safety?

I am 99.9% sure that it will work fine without lock, because the two
operations should be independent.

But you should of course check the docs.

And if I have two write threads, and there is no lock mechanism, will two
write operations interfere each other, and the receiver get mixed data?

Here I would expect problem unless it is written in large bold blinking
font in the docs that Write does a lock.

Arne

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Re: basic question about NetworkStream( read/write, multiple thread)

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:53:55 -0700, Ryan Liu <rliu@powercati .comwrote:

>Hi, I have some basic question about NetworkStream, can someone
>explain to
>me? Thanks a lot in advance!
>>
>TcpClient has a GetStream() method return a NetworkStream for read and
>write.
>>
>I remember there are 2 streams in Java, one for read, one for write.

>
I haven't tried this, but I believe that you can create multiple
NetworkStreams from the same Socket instance. Then you could just
always use one stream to read and one to write, similar to the
"Input..." and "Output..." streams in Java.

I would expect 2 calls to GetStream to return references to the
same object making it rather pointless.

Arne

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Re: basic question about NetworkStream( read/write, multiple thread)

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:34:42 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote:

>I would expect 2 calls to GetStream to return references to the
>same object making it rather pointless.

>
"GetStream" ? I don't know what method you're talking about,

It is a method in TcpClient.

Quote from original post:

#TcpClient has a GetStream() method return a NetworkStream for read and
#write.

but I was
referring to creating two NetworkStreams from scratch, using a
constructor that takes a Socket as a parameter.

If he rewrite from using TcpClient to use Socket he can get two
NetworkStreams out of it.

Arne

[Peter Duniho]

Re: basic question about NetworkStream( read/write, multiple thread)

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:27:00 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote:

[...]
If he rewrite from using TcpClient to use Socket he can get two
NetworkStreams out of it.

Which is just what I wrote.

I really don't understand what your point is. You're probably right that
calling TcpClient.GetSt ream() twice is pointless. But I never suggested
doing that. My post (and even the part you quoted, for that matter)
specifically suggested using a Socket to create the NetworkStream
instances.

What's the relevance of your statement?

Pete

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Re: basic question about NetworkStream( read/write, multiple thread)

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:27:00 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote:

>If he rewrite from using TcpClient to use Socket he can get two
>NetworkStrea ms out of it.

>
Which is just what I wrote.
>
I really don't understand what your point is. You're probably right
that calling TcpClient.GetSt ream() twice is pointless. But I never
suggested doing that. My post (and even the part you quoted, for that
matter) specifically suggested using a Socket to create the
NetworkStream instances.
>
What's the relevance of your statement?

That it relates to the original post ...

Arne

[Peter Duniho]

Re: basic question about NetworkStream( read/write, multiple thread)

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:31:32 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote:

> What's the relevance of your statement?

>
That it relates to the original post ...

There are a great number of things that are related to the original post
and yet which would be pointless with respect to addressing the original
post.

Why would you pick that one thing as _the_ pointless thing you would
mention? Why would you bother to mention _any_ pointless thing? If you
are mentioning pointless things, why stop at just the one? Why not
describe all of the pointless things you can think of? And why would you
do so as a reply to my own post (to which by your own admission your reply
wasn't relevant), rather than to the original post?

It's funny: it's pretty obvious that you misread my post and eager to try
to describe my own suggestion as "pointless" , replied to my post and did
just that. Now that you realize you were mistaken, it's impossible for
you to admit it, inasmuch as it's impossible for you to admit _any_
mistake.

I guess the really curious thing is whether you even realize this is going
on inside your head. From outside, it's readily apparent. If you don't
recognize it yourself, that's sad. Though, to your credit: in my country,
that'd qualify you for the job of President. So, you've got that going
for you. :)

Pete