Method #1:
The simplest and least efficient method is to create a critical section for the readers and writers.
// Writer
lock (aList)
{
aList.Remove(item);
}
// Reader
lock (aList)
{
foreach (T name in aList)
{
name.doSomething();
}
}
Method #2:
This is similar to method #1, but instead of holding the lock for the entire duration of the foreach
loop you would copy the collection first and then iterate over the copy.
// Writer
lock (aList)
{
aList.Remove(item);
}
// Reader
List<T> copy;
lock (aList)
{
copy = new List<T>(aList);
}
foreach (T name in copy)
{
name.doSomething();
}
Method #3:
It all depends on your specific situation, but the way I normally deal with this is to keep the master reference to the collection immutable. That way you never have to synchronize access on the reader side. The writer side of things needs a lock
. The reader side needs nothing which means the readers stay highly concurrent. The only thing you need to do is mark the aList
reference as volatile
.
// Variable declaration
object lockref = new object();
volatile List<T> aList = new List<T>();
// Writer
lock (lockref)
{
var copy = new List<T>(aList);
copy.Remove(item);
aList = copy;
}
// Reader
List<T> local = aList;
foreach (T name in local)
{
name.doSomething();
}