Is there a shorter version of this C# code?

Question

2.00/5 (1 vote)

See more:

Is there a way to make this code shorter? Whenever I call function in thread I have to do this, making two function for one, maybe you think I'm dumb, but I really need a shortcut to this, I make my code looks stupid using this method. It looks like this:

C#

public void StartServer(bool InThread = false)
        {
            if (InThread)
            {
                Thread t = new Thread(CallStartServer);
                t.Start();
            }
            else CallStartServer();
        }

        private void CallStartServer()
        {
            TcpListener listener = new TcpListener(IPAddress.Any, Port);
            while (true)
            {
                if (listener.Pending())
                {
                    TcpClient client = listener.AcceptTcpClient();
                    if (OnClientConnected != null) OnClientConnected(client);
                }
            }
        }

it will really be appreciated if you share a shorter version.

Posted 24-Sep-15 9:01am

SrgjanX

Updated 24-Sep-15 12:35pm

Paul Conrad

v2

Add a Solution

Comments

PIEBALDconsult 24-Sep-15 15:19pm

~~Use an anonymous method?~~
Have StartServer pass itself to the thread with a parameter of false?

SrgjanX 24-Sep-15 15:19pm

how? :/

PIEBALDconsult 24-Sep-15 15:25pm

See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/system.threading.parameterizedthreadstart(v=vs.110).aspx

Matt T Heffron 24-Sep-15 17:29pm

Are you sure about that link?
The example I see there has nothing to do with threading.
(I think MSDN is broken there.)
The .NET Framework 4 version is correct:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/system.threading.parameterizedthreadstart(v=vs.100).aspx

PIEBALDconsult 24-Sep-15 19:50pm

Really? I get ParameterizedThreadStart Delegate as expected.

Matt T Heffron 24-Sep-15 19:58pm

It is ParameterizedThreadStartDelegate, but the example code I see has nothing to do with ParameterizedThreadStartDelegate.

PIEBALDconsult 24-Sep-15 20:01pm

Ah, whatever; I blame Microsoft.

Matt T Heffron 24-Sep-15 21:03pm

See my implementation of the PIEBALDconsult suggestion.
It isn't really much shorter but it does avoid splitting into two methods.

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Matt T Heffron · Answer 1 · 2015-09-24T13:11:00

Solution 1

I think this is what PIEBALDconsult was referring to:

C#

public void StartServer(bool InThread = false)
{
  if (InThread)
  {
    Thread t = new Thread(it => StartServer((bool)it));
    t.Start(false);
  }
  else
  {
    TcpListener listener = new TcpListener(IPAddress.Any, Port);
    while (true)
    {
      if (listener.Pending())
      {
        TcpClient client = listener.AcceptTcpClient();
        if (OnClientConnected != null)
          OnClientConnected(client);
      }
    }
  }
}

The lambda in the Thread constructor is required because the ParameterizedThreadStart delegate to that constructor needs the argument to be type object.

Edit: MTH
As PIEBALDconsult noted in the comments below. The thread creation can be simplified a bit:

C#

if (InThread)
{
  Thread t = new Thread(() => StartServer(false));
  t.Start();
}
else

Or, if you just want to start the thread and then forget about it:

C#

if (InThread)
{
  new Thread(() => StartServer(false)).Start();
}
else

but you won't be able to do anything to the thread after that.
(That's pretty much like having the local variable t go out of scope right after starting the thread!)

Posted 24-Sep-15 13:11pm

Matt T Heffron

Updated 24-Sep-15 15:08pm

v2

Comments

PIEBALDconsult 24-Sep-15 19:51pm

Yep, except I avoid Lambdas and would have used an Anonymous Method.
And I probably wouldn't have a local variable to hold the Thread for no reason, maybe use Join to wait for the thread to exit.

Matt T Heffron 24-Sep-15 20:05pm

Isn't a lambda pretty much a different syntax for an anonymous method? Here I just use it for the wrapper, but, yes it could be the "body" of the method, invoked either directly or by the new thread.

I also agree about the local variable for the Thread. I was trying to keep it as close to the original and still demonstrate the concept.

PIEBALDconsult 24-Sep-15 20:09pm

I can't read Lambdas so I don't write them. :D

I guess a thread pool references the thread.

And in the Lambda you should just send false to the method or you have an infinite loop, yes?

Matt T Heffron 24-Sep-15 20:13pm

Reading lambdas is not a problem for me...I used to do lots of work in Lisp! Just a different syntax for the same semantics.
Yes, the lambda could be parameterless and just pass the false directly which would have removed the parameter from the .Start(). Just general case vs. specific case.

Matt T Heffron 24-Sep-15 20:14pm

Also, there's a note in the Thread class description: It is not necessary to retain a reference to a Thread object once you have started the thread. The thread continues to execute until the thread procedure is complete. I learned something new...

PIEBALDconsult 24-Sep-15 20:21pm

Glad to be of service.

BillWoodruff 24-Sep-15 23:21pm

+5 Nice to see quality technical dialog like this !

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Answer 2 · 2015-09-24T18:02:00

Why making shorter something which is already based on wrong idea? The whole idea to create a new thread in a call is quite bad. There are different, much better variants, such as having a permanently working thread you feed with tasks (delegate instances); the tasks go in a blocking queue, so when there is no another task, a thread goes in a wait state, which does not waste any CPU time.

See, for example, my article Simple Blocking Queue for Thread Communication and Inter-thread Invocation[^] (and pay attention for the alternative, http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/ListAlternatives.aspx?aid=149540[^]).

And so on…

—SA