VB.Net - Is it best to have threads use separate classes?

Question

4.00/5 (1 vote)

See more:

I am using this code below to monitor a tcp socket and process requests:

VB

' Accept connections until the service needs to be stopped.
Do While Not m_stopRequested

    ' Wait for an incoming connection. Wait a max of 1 second.
    sock = m_listenSock.AcceptNextConnection(1000)
    If (Not (sock Is Nothing)) Then
        ' start up a thread
        t = New Thread(AddressOf Me.HandleClient)
        m_numActiveThreads = m_numActiveThreads + 1
        t.Start(sock)
        'Call HandleClient(sock)
    End If

Loop

When it creates a new thread and using Me.HandleClient, which is just a SUB in the same code, is this OK to do or should I create a separate class on its own? I guess the real question is, when the new thread is created, do it make a whole different memory space for each thread?

Thanks

Posted 10-May-13 6:02am

onemorecoke

Add a Solution

Comments

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 10-May-13 12:26pm

This is a good idea, I voted 4. Not 5, as you don't really understand the essence of things: the threads of same process always share the memory, only each thread had is independent stack and context (in particular, the processor state should be saved and restored while switching between threads); that actually makes threads threads, preserving the structure of calls and returns. My answers (please see) explain how objects are accessed with you wrap the thread.
—SA

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)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-10T06:22:00

There are some aspects related to access to cross-thread shared data and thread parameters which led me (on the base on long well-known ideas, no big inventions here :-)) to the idea of importance and great benefits of wrapping a thread in a separate class, especially in .NET, where a thread start method can be an instance (non-static method). In this case, you can pass full access of the wrapper instance to the thread method. Besides, it helps to encapsulate access to the shared data (that it, its locking mechanism) which can be stored in the thread wrapper.

For further detail, please see my past answers:
How to pass ref parameter to the thread[^],
with lock: Change parameters of thread (producer) after it is started[^],
MultiThreading in C#[^].

The CodeProject member VSNetVbHarry was so nice to provide a VB.NET sample code: Passing arguments to a threaded LongRunningProcess[^].

I hope C# used in my answer won't prevent you from understanding the approach. In all cases, your follow-up questions will be welcome.

[EDIT]

And your question itself, as it is formulated, is answered in my comment to the question.

—SA

pdoxtader · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-10T06:58:00

I guess the simple answer is yes, but only if you believe that your code would be more manageable / legible if that thread's task were encapsulated in it's own class. Just looking at what you've provided, I would have to say yes - because that thread is responsible for a socket connection. Instead of recording the number of threads you've created, you could add objects to a collection after creating one from your custom class for that socket's connection, and do things like kill the connection, queue up messages to be sent, get the status of each individual socket connection and all by simply enumerating the list you created, and calling methods you prepare for that event.

I find that creating a class for a thread becomes more and more desirable the more you need to control / communicate with it.

Hope this helps,
- Pete

VB.Net - Is it best to have threads use separate classes?

2 solutions

Solution 1

Solution 2

Add your solution here

Preview 0