A wish: Execute under Lock method in sync objects

[valentin tihomirov]

It is quite convenient to use the basic primitive:

lock(object) {
method();
}

On the other hand,

rwLock.AcquireR eaderLock(-1);
try { // unlock finally
method();
} finally {
rwLock.ReleaseR eaderLock();
}

is much less cosy but is typical scenario, I beleive. I would prefer:

rwLock.RLock(-1) {
method();
}

instead. Why not to introduce the utility methods?

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: A wish: Execute under Lock method in sync objects

On Nov 15, 12:49 pm, "valentin tihomirov" <V_tihomi...@be st.eewrote:

It is quite convenient to use the basic primitive:
>
lock(object) {
method();
>
}
>
On the other hand,
>
rwLock.AcquireR eaderLock(-1);
try { // unlock finally
method();
} finally {
rwLock.ReleaseR eaderLock();
}
>
is much less cosy but is typical scenario, I beleive. I would prefer:
>
rwLock.RLock(-1) {
method();
}
>
instead. Why not to introduce the utility methods?

You wouldn't really even need that - just make the AcquireReaderLo ck
method return a Disposable; then you can do:

using (rwLock.Acquire ReaderLock())
{
method();
}

That's the approach I take with my own lock wrapper:

http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/miscutil/usage/locking.html

Jon

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: A wish: Execute under Lock method in sync objects

It's really pretty easy, and I do it all the time. Much like Jon's Padlock
class, I use something that looks like this:

public class ReadLock : IDisposable
{
private readonly ReaderWriterLoc k _rwlock;
public ReadLock(Reader WriteLock rw)
{
_rwlock = rw;
_rwLock.Acquire ReadLock(...);
}

public void Dispose()
{
_rwLock.ExitRea dLock();
}
}

--
Chris Mullins

"valentin tihomirov" <V_tihomirov@be st.eewrote in message
news:%23impYX4J IHA.5624@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..

It is quite convenient to use the basic primitive:
>
lock(object) {
method();
}
>
On the other hand,
>
rwLock.AcquireR eaderLock(-1);
try { // unlock finally
method();
} finally {
rwLock.ReleaseR eaderLock();
}
>
is much less cosy but is typical scenario, I beleive. I would prefer:
>
rwLock.RLock(-1) {
method();
}
>
instead. Why not to introduce the utility methods?
>