Thread-safe List<T> property

I want an implementation of List<T> as a property which can be used thread-safely without any doubt.

Something like this:

private List<T> _list;

private List<T> MyT
{
    get { // return a copy of _list; }
    set { _list = value; }
}

It seems still I need to return a copy (cloned) of collection so if somewhere we are iterating the collection and at the sam开发者_Go百科e time the collection is set, then no exception is raised.

How to implement a thread-safe collection property?

If you are targetting .Net 4 there are a few options in System.Collections.Concurrent Namespace

You could use ConcurrentBag<T> in this case instead of List<T>

Even as it got the most votes, one usually can't take System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<T> as a thread-safe replacement for System.Collections.Generic.List<T> as it is (Radek Stromský already pointed it out) not ordered.

But there is a class called System.Collections.Generic.SynchronizedCollection<T> that is already since .NET 3.0 part of the framework, but it is that well hidden in a location where one does not expect it that it is little known and probably you have never ever stumbled over it (at least I never did).

SynchronizedCollection<T> is compiled into assembly System.ServiceModel.dll (which is part of the client profile but not of the portable class library).

I would think making a sample ThreadSafeList class would be easy:

public class ThreadSafeList<T> : IList<T>
{
    protected List<T> _internalList = new List<T>();

    // Other Elements of IList implementation

    public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
    {
        return Clone().GetEnumerator();
    }

    System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
    {
        return Clone().GetEnumerator();
    }

    protected static object _lock = new object();

    public List<T> Clone()
    {
        List<T> newList = new List<T>();

        lock (_lock)
        {
            _internalList.ForEach(x => newList.Add(x));
        }

        return newList;
    }
}

You simply clone the list before requesting an enumerator, and thus any enumeration is working off a copy that can't be modified while running.

Even accepted answer is ConcurrentBag, I don't think it's real replacement of list in all cases, as Radek's comment to the answer says: "ConcurrentBag is unordered collection, so unlike List it does not guarantee ordering. Also you cannot access items by index".

So if you use .NET 4.0 or higher, a workaround could be to use ConcurrentDictionary with integer TKey as array index and TValue as array value. This is recommended way of replacing list in Pluralsight's C# Concurrent Collections course. ConcurrentDictionary solves both problems mentioned above: index accessing and ordering (we can not rely on ordering as it's hash table under the hood, but current .NET implementation saves order of elements adding).

C#'s ArrayList class has a Synchronized method.

var threadSafeArrayList = ArrayList.Synchronized(new ArrayList());

This returns a thread safe wrapper around any instance of IList. All operations need to be performed through the wrapper to ensure thread safety.

In .NET Core (any version), you can use ImmutableList, which has all the functionality of List<T>.

If you look at the source code for List of T (https://referencesource.microsoft.com/#mscorlib/system/collections/generic/list.cs,c66df6f36c131877) you will notice there is a class there (which is of course internal - why, Microsoft, why?!?!) called SynchronizedList of T. I am copy pasting the code here:

   [Serializable()]
    internal class SynchronizedList : IList<T> {
        private List<T> _list;
        private Object _root;

        internal SynchronizedList(List<T> list) {
            _list = list;
            _root = ((System.Collections.ICollection)list).SyncRoot;
        }

        public int Count {
            get {
                lock (_root) { 
                    return _list.Count; 
                }
            }
        }

        public bool IsReadOnly {
            get {
                return ((ICollection<T>)_list).IsReadOnly;
            }
        }

        public void Add(T item) {
            lock (_root) { 
                _list.Add(item); 
            }
        }

        public void Clear() {
            lock (_root) { 
                _list.Clear(); 
            }
        }

        public bool Contains(T item) {
            lock (_root) { 
                return _list.Contains(item);
            }
        }

        public void CopyTo(T[] array, int arrayIndex) {
            lock (_root) { 
                _list.CopyTo(array, arrayIndex);
            }
        }

        public bool Remove(T item) {
            lock (_root) { 
                return _list.Remove(item);
            }
        }

        System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() {
            lock (_root) { 
                return _list.GetEnumerator();
            }
        }

        IEnumerator<T> IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator() {
            lock (_root) { 
                return ((IEnumerable<T>)_list).GetEnumerator();
            }
        }

        public T this[int index] {
            get {
                lock(_root) {
                    return _list[index];
                }
            }
            set {
                lock(_root) {
                    _list[index] = value;
                }
            }
        }

        public int IndexOf(T item) {
            lock (_root) {
                return _list.IndexOf(item);
            }
        }

        public void Insert(int index, T item) {
            lock (_root) {
                _list.Insert(index, item);
            }
        }

        public void RemoveAt(int index) {
            lock (_root) {
                _list.RemoveAt(index);
            }
        }
    }

Personally I think they knew a better implementation using SemaphoreSlim could be created, but didn't get to it.

I would suggest anyone dealing with a List<T> in multi-threading scenarios to take look at Immutable Collections in particular the ImmutableArray.

I've found it very useful when you have:

1. Relatively few items in the list
2. Not so many read/write operations
3. A LOT of concurrent access (i.e. many threads that access the list in reading mode)

Also can be useful when you need to implement some sort of transaction-like behavior (i.e. revert an insert/update/delete operation in case of fail)

It seems like many of the people finding this are wanting a thread safe indexed dynamically sized collection. The closest and easiest thing I know of would be.

System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentDictionary<int, YourDataType>

This would require you to ensure your key is properly incremented if you want normal indexing behavior. If you are careful .count() could suffice as the key for any new key value pairs you add.

You can also use the more primitive

Monitor.Enter(lock);
Monitor.Exit(lock);

which lock uses (see this post C# Locking an object that is reassigned in lock block).

If you are expecting exceptions in the code this is not safe but it allows you to do something like the following:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Linq;

public class Something
{
    private readonly object _lock;
    private readonly List<string> _contents;

    public Something()
    {
        _lock = new object();

        _contents = new List<string>();
    }

    public Modifier StartModifying()
    {
        return new Modifier(this);
    }

    public class Modifier : IDisposable
    {
        private readonly Something _thing;

        public Modifier(Something thing)
        {
            _thing = thing;

            Monitor.Enter(Lock);
        }

        public void OneOfLotsOfDifferentOperations(string input)
        {
            DoSomethingWith(input);
        }

        private void DoSomethingWith(string input)
        {
            Contents.Add(input);
        }

        private List<string> Contents
        {
            get { return _thing._contents; }
        }

        private object Lock
        {
            get { return _thing._lock; }
        }

        public void Dispose()
        {
            Monitor.Exit(Lock);
        }
    }
}

public class Caller
{
    public void Use(Something thing)
    {
        using (var modifier = thing.StartModifying())
        {
            modifier.OneOfLotsOfDifferentOperations("A");
            modifier.OneOfLotsOfDifferentOperations("B");

            modifier.OneOfLotsOfDifferentOperations("A");
            modifier.OneOfLotsOfDifferentOperations("A");
            modifier.OneOfLotsOfDifferentOperations("A");
        }
    }
}

One of the nice things about this is you'll get the lock for the duration of the series of operations (rather than locking in each operation). Which means that the output should come out in the right chunks (my usage of this was getting some output onto screen from an external process)

I do really like the simplicity + transparency of the ThreadSafeList + that does the important bit in stopping crashes

I believe _list.ToList() will make you a copy. You can also query it if you need to such as :

_list.Select("query here").ToList(); 

Anyways, msdn says this is indeed a copy and not simply a reference. Oh, and yes, you will need to lock in the set method as the others have pointed out.

Looking at the original sample one may guess that the intention was to be able to simply replace the list with the new one. The setter on the property tells us about it.

The Micrisoft's Thread-Safe Collections are for safely adding and removing items from collection. But if in the application logic you are intending to replace the collection with the new one, one may guess, again, that the adding and deleting functionality of the List is not required.

If this is the case then, the simple answer would be to use IReadOnlyList interface:

 private IReadOnlyList<T> _readOnlyList = new List<T>();

    private IReadOnlyList<T> MyT
    {
       get { return _readOnlyList; }
       set { _readOnlyList = value; }
    }

One doesn't need to use any locking in this situation because there is no way to modify the collection. If in the setter the "_readOnlyList = value;" will be replaced by something more complicated then the lock could be required.

Basically if you want to enumerate safely, you need to use lock.

Please refer to MSDN on this. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6sh2ey19.aspx

Here is part of MSDN that you might be interested:

Public static (Shared in Visual Basic) members of this type are thread safe. Any instance members are not guaranteed to be thread safe.

A List can support multiple readers concurrently, as long as the collection is not modified. Enumerating through a collection is intrinsically not a thread-safe procedure. In the rare case where an enumeration contends with one or more write accesses, the only way to ensure thread safety is to lock the collection during the entire enumeration. To allow the collection to be accessed by multiple threads for reading and writing, you must implement your own synchronization.

Here is the class for thread safe list without lock

 public class ConcurrentList   
    {
        private long _i = 1;
        private ConcurrentDictionary<long, T> dict = new ConcurrentDictionary<long, T>();  
        public int Count()
        {
            return dict.Count;
        }
         public List<T> ToList()
         {
            return dict.Values.ToList();
         }

        public T this[int i]
        {
            get
            {
                long ii = dict.Keys.ToArray()[i];
                return dict[ii];
            }
        }
        public void Remove(T item)
        {
            T ov;
            var dicItem = dict.Where(c => c.Value.Equals(item)).FirstOrDefault();
            if (dicItem.Key > 0)
            {
                dict.TryRemove(dicItem.Key, out ov);
            }
            this.CheckReset();
        }
        public void RemoveAt(int i)
        {
            long v = dict.Keys.ToArray()[i];
            T ov;
            dict.TryRemove(v, out ov);
            this.CheckReset();
        }
        public void Add(T item)
        {
            dict.TryAdd(_i, item);
            _i++;
        }
        public IEnumerable<T> Where(Func<T, bool> p)
        {
            return dict.Values.Where(p);
        }
        public T FirstOrDefault(Func<T, bool> p)
        {
            return dict.Values.Where(p).FirstOrDefault();
        }
        public bool Any(Func<T, bool> p)
        {
            return dict.Values.Where(p).Count() > 0 ? true : false;
        }
        public void Clear()
        {
            dict.Clear();
        }
        private void CheckReset()
        {
            if (dict.Count == 0)
            {
                this.Reset();
            }
        }
        private void Reset()
        {
            _i = 1;
        }
    }

Use the lock statement to do this. (Read here for more information.)

private List<T> _list;

private List<T> MyT
{
    get { return _list; }
    set
    {
        //Lock so only one thread can change the value at any given time.
        lock (_list)
        {
            _list = value;
        }
    }
}

FYI this probably isn't exactly what your asking - you likely want to lock farther out in your code but I can't assume that. Have a look at the lock keyword and tailor its use to your specific situation.

If you need to, you could lock in both the get and set block using the _list variable which would make it so a read/write can not occur at the same time.