CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#.net
makstaks
makstaks

Reputation: 2111

Why use Hashtable.Synchronized?

From the MSDN documentation:

"Synchronized supports multiple writing threads, provided that no threads are reading the Hashtable. The synchronized wrapper does not provide thread-safe access in the case of one or more readers and one or more writers."

Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.hashtable.synchronized.aspx

It sounds like I still have to use locks anyways, so my question is why would we use Hashtable.Synchronized at all?

Upvotes: 4

Views: 5495

Answers (3)

ehosca
ehosca

Reputation: 955

you would need it when you are for-eaching over a hashtable on one thread (reads) and there exists other threads that may add/remove items to/from it (writes) ...

Upvotes: 0

Vinko Vrsalovic
Vinko Vrsalovic

Reputation: 340201

For the case where you can guarantee that no reader will access the data structure when writing to it (or when you don't care reading wrong data). For example, where the structure is not continually being modified, but a one time calculation that you'll later have to access, although huge enough to warrant many threads writing to it.

Upvotes: 1

Chris Marasti-Georg
Chris Marasti-Georg

Reputation: 34650

For the same reason there are different levels of DB transaction. You may care that writes are guaranteed, but not mind reading stale/possibly bad data.

EDIT I note that their specific example is an Enumerator. They can't handle this case in their wrapper, because if you break from the enumeration early, the wrapper class would have no way to know that it can release its lock.

Think instead of the case of a counter. Multiple threads can increase a value in the table, and you want to display the value of the count. It doesn't matter if you display 1,200,453 and the count is actually 1,200,454 - you just need it close. However, you don't want the data to be corrupt. This is a case where thread-safety is important for writes, but not reads.

Upvotes: 3

Related Questions