Fire-and-forget with async vs “old async delegate”
I am trying to replace my old fire-and-forget calls with a new syntax, hoping for more simplicity and it seems to be eluding me. Here's an example
class Program
{
static void DoIt(string entry)
{
Console.WriteLine("Message: " + entry);
}
static async void DoIt2(string entry)
{
await Task.Yield();
Console.WriteLine("Message2: " + entry);
}
static void Main(string args)
{
// old way
Action<string> async = DoIt;
async.BeginInvoke("Test", ar => { async.EndInvoke(ar); ar.AsyncWaitHandle.Close(); }, null);
Console.WriteLine("old-way main thread invoker finished");
// new way
DoIt2("Test2");
Console.WriteLine("new-way main thread invoker finished");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Both approaches do the same thing, however what I seem to have gained (no need to EndInvoke
and close handle, which is imho still a bit debatable) I am losing in the new way by having to await a Task.Yield()
, which actually poses a new problem of having to rewrite all existing async F&F methods just to add that one-liner. Are there some invisible gains in terms of performance/cleanup?
How would I go about applying async if I can't modify the background method? Seems to me that there is no direct way, I would have to create a wrapper async method that would await Task.Run()?
Edit: I now see I might be missing a real questions. The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async
/await
in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
c# asynchronous c#-5.0
add a comment |
I am trying to replace my old fire-and-forget calls with a new syntax, hoping for more simplicity and it seems to be eluding me. Here's an example
class Program
{
static void DoIt(string entry)
{
Console.WriteLine("Message: " + entry);
}
static async void DoIt2(string entry)
{
await Task.Yield();
Console.WriteLine("Message2: " + entry);
}
static void Main(string args)
{
// old way
Action<string> async = DoIt;
async.BeginInvoke("Test", ar => { async.EndInvoke(ar); ar.AsyncWaitHandle.Close(); }, null);
Console.WriteLine("old-way main thread invoker finished");
// new way
DoIt2("Test2");
Console.WriteLine("new-way main thread invoker finished");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Both approaches do the same thing, however what I seem to have gained (no need to EndInvoke
and close handle, which is imho still a bit debatable) I am losing in the new way by having to await a Task.Yield()
, which actually poses a new problem of having to rewrite all existing async F&F methods just to add that one-liner. Are there some invisible gains in terms of performance/cleanup?
How would I go about applying async if I can't modify the background method? Seems to me that there is no direct way, I would have to create a wrapper async method that would await Task.Run()?
Edit: I now see I might be missing a real questions. The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async
/await
in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
c# asynchronous c#-5.0
1
async/await is not really designed for offloading synchronous workloads onto another thread. I've used async/await in some pretty huge projects with not aThread.Yield
in sight. I see this code as an abuse of the the async await philosophy. If there's no async IO, async/await is probably the wrong solution.
– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:23
I would disagree, especially in my case; there is no sound reason to force http requestor to wait for a complete process to finish to receive a response available at the very begining. The rest can be safely offloaded. The only question really is can async/await help, make worse or is just unusable in this scenario. I must admit I had different ideas about what it was.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:41
1
I don't disagree that the work might need offloading. I'm saying that usingasync/await
combined withTask.Yield
has a bad smell. UsingThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
would be a better fit here. After all, that's really what you're trying to do... send the work to the ThreadPool with a resonably minimal code footprint, right?
– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:45
1
oh, ok. fair comment, I misunderstood your claim. I guess I just thought that with async I'll just call a method and it will magically start on another thread :). Speaking of different approaches, does anyone know of a comparison between the three?ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
vsTask.Factory.StartNew
vsdelegate.BeginInvoke
? If I am going to make changes, I might as well do it in the best available way.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:49
add a comment |
I am trying to replace my old fire-and-forget calls with a new syntax, hoping for more simplicity and it seems to be eluding me. Here's an example
class Program
{
static void DoIt(string entry)
{
Console.WriteLine("Message: " + entry);
}
static async void DoIt2(string entry)
{
await Task.Yield();
Console.WriteLine("Message2: " + entry);
}
static void Main(string args)
{
// old way
Action<string> async = DoIt;
async.BeginInvoke("Test", ar => { async.EndInvoke(ar); ar.AsyncWaitHandle.Close(); }, null);
Console.WriteLine("old-way main thread invoker finished");
// new way
DoIt2("Test2");
Console.WriteLine("new-way main thread invoker finished");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Both approaches do the same thing, however what I seem to have gained (no need to EndInvoke
and close handle, which is imho still a bit debatable) I am losing in the new way by having to await a Task.Yield()
, which actually poses a new problem of having to rewrite all existing async F&F methods just to add that one-liner. Are there some invisible gains in terms of performance/cleanup?
How would I go about applying async if I can't modify the background method? Seems to me that there is no direct way, I would have to create a wrapper async method that would await Task.Run()?
Edit: I now see I might be missing a real questions. The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async
/await
in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
c# asynchronous c#-5.0
I am trying to replace my old fire-and-forget calls with a new syntax, hoping for more simplicity and it seems to be eluding me. Here's an example
class Program
{
static void DoIt(string entry)
{
Console.WriteLine("Message: " + entry);
}
static async void DoIt2(string entry)
{
await Task.Yield();
Console.WriteLine("Message2: " + entry);
}
static void Main(string args)
{
// old way
Action<string> async = DoIt;
async.BeginInvoke("Test", ar => { async.EndInvoke(ar); ar.AsyncWaitHandle.Close(); }, null);
Console.WriteLine("old-way main thread invoker finished");
// new way
DoIt2("Test2");
Console.WriteLine("new-way main thread invoker finished");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Both approaches do the same thing, however what I seem to have gained (no need to EndInvoke
and close handle, which is imho still a bit debatable) I am losing in the new way by having to await a Task.Yield()
, which actually poses a new problem of having to rewrite all existing async F&F methods just to add that one-liner. Are there some invisible gains in terms of performance/cleanup?
How would I go about applying async if I can't modify the background method? Seems to me that there is no direct way, I would have to create a wrapper async method that would await Task.Run()?
Edit: I now see I might be missing a real questions. The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async
/await
in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
c# asynchronous c#-5.0
c# asynchronous c#-5.0
edited Oct 9 '12 at 15:17
mmix
asked Oct 9 '12 at 15:04
mmixmmix
4,49222555
4,49222555
1
async/await is not really designed for offloading synchronous workloads onto another thread. I've used async/await in some pretty huge projects with not aThread.Yield
in sight. I see this code as an abuse of the the async await philosophy. If there's no async IO, async/await is probably the wrong solution.
– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:23
I would disagree, especially in my case; there is no sound reason to force http requestor to wait for a complete process to finish to receive a response available at the very begining. The rest can be safely offloaded. The only question really is can async/await help, make worse or is just unusable in this scenario. I must admit I had different ideas about what it was.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:41
1
I don't disagree that the work might need offloading. I'm saying that usingasync/await
combined withTask.Yield
has a bad smell. UsingThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
would be a better fit here. After all, that's really what you're trying to do... send the work to the ThreadPool with a resonably minimal code footprint, right?
– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:45
1
oh, ok. fair comment, I misunderstood your claim. I guess I just thought that with async I'll just call a method and it will magically start on another thread :). Speaking of different approaches, does anyone know of a comparison between the three?ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
vsTask.Factory.StartNew
vsdelegate.BeginInvoke
? If I am going to make changes, I might as well do it in the best available way.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:49
add a comment |
1
async/await is not really designed for offloading synchronous workloads onto another thread. I've used async/await in some pretty huge projects with not aThread.Yield
in sight. I see this code as an abuse of the the async await philosophy. If there's no async IO, async/await is probably the wrong solution.
– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:23
I would disagree, especially in my case; there is no sound reason to force http requestor to wait for a complete process to finish to receive a response available at the very begining. The rest can be safely offloaded. The only question really is can async/await help, make worse or is just unusable in this scenario. I must admit I had different ideas about what it was.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:41
1
I don't disagree that the work might need offloading. I'm saying that usingasync/await
combined withTask.Yield
has a bad smell. UsingThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
would be a better fit here. After all, that's really what you're trying to do... send the work to the ThreadPool with a resonably minimal code footprint, right?
– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:45
1
oh, ok. fair comment, I misunderstood your claim. I guess I just thought that with async I'll just call a method and it will magically start on another thread :). Speaking of different approaches, does anyone know of a comparison between the three?ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
vsTask.Factory.StartNew
vsdelegate.BeginInvoke
? If I am going to make changes, I might as well do it in the best available way.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:49
1
1
async/await is not really designed for offloading synchronous workloads onto another thread. I've used async/await in some pretty huge projects with not a
Thread.Yield
in sight. I see this code as an abuse of the the async await philosophy. If there's no async IO, async/await is probably the wrong solution.– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:23
async/await is not really designed for offloading synchronous workloads onto another thread. I've used async/await in some pretty huge projects with not a
Thread.Yield
in sight. I see this code as an abuse of the the async await philosophy. If there's no async IO, async/await is probably the wrong solution.– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:23
I would disagree, especially in my case; there is no sound reason to force http requestor to wait for a complete process to finish to receive a response available at the very begining. The rest can be safely offloaded. The only question really is can async/await help, make worse or is just unusable in this scenario. I must admit I had different ideas about what it was.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:41
I would disagree, especially in my case; there is no sound reason to force http requestor to wait for a complete process to finish to receive a response available at the very begining. The rest can be safely offloaded. The only question really is can async/await help, make worse or is just unusable in this scenario. I must admit I had different ideas about what it was.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:41
1
1
I don't disagree that the work might need offloading. I'm saying that using
async/await
combined with Task.Yield
has a bad smell. Using ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
would be a better fit here. After all, that's really what you're trying to do... send the work to the ThreadPool with a resonably minimal code footprint, right?– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:45
I don't disagree that the work might need offloading. I'm saying that using
async/await
combined with Task.Yield
has a bad smell. Using ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
would be a better fit here. After all, that's really what you're trying to do... send the work to the ThreadPool with a resonably minimal code footprint, right?– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:45
1
1
oh, ok. fair comment, I misunderstood your claim. I guess I just thought that with async I'll just call a method and it will magically start on another thread :). Speaking of different approaches, does anyone know of a comparison between the three?
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
vs Task.Factory.StartNew
vs delegate.BeginInvoke
? If I am going to make changes, I might as well do it in the best available way.– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:49
oh, ok. fair comment, I misunderstood your claim. I guess I just thought that with async I'll just call a method and it will magically start on another thread :). Speaking of different approaches, does anyone know of a comparison between the three?
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
vs Task.Factory.StartNew
vs delegate.BeginInvoke
? If I am going to make changes, I might as well do it in the best available way.– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:49
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Avoid async void
. It has tricky semantics around error handling; I know some people call it "fire and forget" but I usually use the phrase "fire and crash".
The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async/await in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
You don't need async
/ await
. Just call it like this:
Task.Run(A);
4
what if A() has async method calls in it?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:32
2
I mean, how do you avoid the warnings about not awaiting a task?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:40
13
That warning is there because fire-and-forget in anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. If you're positively sure that's what you want to do, you can assign the result to an unused local variable like this:var _ = Task.Run(A);
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 14:12
Thanks Stephen, and, yes, fire and forget is what I want, its a socket accept loop, async void seems perfect. Given that the method always properly handles exceptions (jaylee.org/post/2012/07/08/…) would you agree or am I just going to get in a pickle?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 15:03
4
@AnthonyJohnston: I meant calling a fire-and-forget method from anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. In your case, since you always handle exceptions within the method, there's little difference betweenasync Task
andasync void
. I would still lean a bit more towardsasync Task
, just becauseasync void
to me implies "event handler".
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 15:52
|
show 1 more comment
As noted in the other answers, and by this excellent blog post you want to avoid using async void
outside of UI event handlers. If you want a safe "fire and forget" async
method, consider using this pattern (credit to @ReedCopsey; this method is one he gave to me in a chat conversation):
Create an extension method for
Task
. It runs the passedTask
and catches/logs any exceptions:
static async void FireAndForget(this Task task)
{
try
{
await task;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// log errors
}
}
Always use
Task
styleasync
methods when creating them, neverasync void
.
Invoke those methods this way:
MyTaskAsyncMethod().FireAndForget();
You don't need to await
it (nor will it generate the await
warning). It will also handle any errors correctly, and as this is the only place you ever put async void
, you don't have to remember to put try/catch
blocks everywhere.
This also gives you the option of not using the async
method as a "fire and forget" method if you actually want to await
it normally.
2
Well, if I have a Task, I'll just Run it, no?
– mmix
Jan 12 '15 at 16:13
2
@mmix That depends, you could use aTask
object and run it, but thats not using await/async. This is how you do "fire and forget" with await/async. Note that this is much more useful when you are invoking Async framework methods, and you want to use them in a "fire and forget" sort of way.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 12 '15 at 17:07
2
Hi, its an old post, but generally the idea was to use language "flow" elements to achieve fire and forget, without implicitly using Task object as such. WE came to a conclusion that its not possible since calling async does not raise new thread until it awaits. If I have Task object then I just Run()-it and it will fire and forget.
– mmix
Jan 18 '15 at 10:58
@mmix No problem, this just came up in a discussion I had with Reed Copsey, and in a separate question we had a discussion about usingasync void
to do fire-and-forget where I was pointed to this question as to why not to do that. I was adding this as the "correct" way to utilizeasync void
to do that.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 18 '15 at 18:33
1
@Wellspring due to how ASP.NET manages the lifetime of objects post-request, there's whole libraries to manage that (like Hangfire). I wouldn't recommend just sending a task out in that kind of scenario
– BradleyDotNET
Dec 11 '18 at 20:40
|
show 6 more comments
To me it seems that "awaiting" something and "fire and forget" are two orthogonal concepts. You either start a method asynchronously and don't care for the result, or you want to resume executing on the original context after the operation has finished (and possibly use a return value), which is exactly what await does. If you just want to execute a method on a ThreadPool thread (so that your UI doesn't get blocked), go for
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoIt2("Test2"))
and you'll be fine.
2
the more I experiment with it the more it seems so. async is just for processes where you have meaningful continuation on the results from asynchronous task. No continuation need, no support (other than Task.Yield()). I guess I got sniped by marketing again...
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:34
When on subject, any real differences betweendelegate.BeginInvoke
andTask.Factory.StartNew
?
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:35
1
@mmix, the biggest difference with using Task is that if an exception occurs in the Task, it will wind up being thrown in the finalizer of the Task object, since there is nothing observing the faulted state of the Task. If you don't register for the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException event, this can potentially cause a nasty crash without triggering your usual last-resort logging methods. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not crashing until GC causes the finalizer to run, whereas an invoked delegate will crash the app immediately after the exception.
– Dan Bryant
Oct 9 '12 at 15:56
6
@DanBryant: This has changed in .NET 4.5.UnobservedTaskException
will no longer crash the process; if you don't handle it, the exceptions are silently ignored.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 16:11
1
I felt the same way at first; it took me a long time to come around to appreciating that design.Task
-based code in the future will beasync
-based; in this new world, an unobservedTask
is a fire-and-forgetTask
. This doesn't violate the fail-fast philosophy any more than the old behavior. The old behavior would crash by default because some error happened some indeterminate time before, so the old behavior wasn't "fail-fast" anyway.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 17:15
|
show 2 more comments
My sense is that these 'fire and forget' methods were largely artifacts of needing a clean way to interleave UI and background code so that you can still write your logic as a series of sequential instructions. Since async/await takes care of marshalling through the SynchronizationContext, this becomes less of an issue. The inline code in a longer sequence effectively becomes your 'fire and forget' blocks that would previously have been launched from a routine in a background thread. It's effectively an inversion of the pattern.
The main difference is that the blocks between awaits are more akin to Invoke than BeginInvoke. If you need behavior more like BeginInvoke, you can call the next asynchronous method (returning a Task), then don't actually await the returned Task until after the code that you wanted to 'BeginInvoke'.
public async void Method()
{
//Do UI stuff
await SomeTaskAsync();
//Do more UI stuff (as if called via Invoke from a thread)
var nextTask = NextTaskAsync();
//Do UI stuff while task is running (as if called via BeginInvoke from a thread)
await nextTask;
}
3
Actually we use F&F to avoid blocking the http caller and it has more to do with caller limitations than our own. The logic is sound because caller does not expect a response other than message received (the actual process response will be posted on another channel unrelated to this, or http for that matter).
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:30
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f12803012%2ffire-and-forget-with-async-vs-old-async-delegate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Avoid async void
. It has tricky semantics around error handling; I know some people call it "fire and forget" but I usually use the phrase "fire and crash".
The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async/await in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
You don't need async
/ await
. Just call it like this:
Task.Run(A);
4
what if A() has async method calls in it?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:32
2
I mean, how do you avoid the warnings about not awaiting a task?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:40
13
That warning is there because fire-and-forget in anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. If you're positively sure that's what you want to do, you can assign the result to an unused local variable like this:var _ = Task.Run(A);
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 14:12
Thanks Stephen, and, yes, fire and forget is what I want, its a socket accept loop, async void seems perfect. Given that the method always properly handles exceptions (jaylee.org/post/2012/07/08/…) would you agree or am I just going to get in a pickle?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 15:03
4
@AnthonyJohnston: I meant calling a fire-and-forget method from anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. In your case, since you always handle exceptions within the method, there's little difference betweenasync Task
andasync void
. I would still lean a bit more towardsasync Task
, just becauseasync void
to me implies "event handler".
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 15:52
|
show 1 more comment
Avoid async void
. It has tricky semantics around error handling; I know some people call it "fire and forget" but I usually use the phrase "fire and crash".
The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async/await in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
You don't need async
/ await
. Just call it like this:
Task.Run(A);
4
what if A() has async method calls in it?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:32
2
I mean, how do you avoid the warnings about not awaiting a task?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:40
13
That warning is there because fire-and-forget in anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. If you're positively sure that's what you want to do, you can assign the result to an unused local variable like this:var _ = Task.Run(A);
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 14:12
Thanks Stephen, and, yes, fire and forget is what I want, its a socket accept loop, async void seems perfect. Given that the method always properly handles exceptions (jaylee.org/post/2012/07/08/…) would you agree or am I just going to get in a pickle?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 15:03
4
@AnthonyJohnston: I meant calling a fire-and-forget method from anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. In your case, since you always handle exceptions within the method, there's little difference betweenasync Task
andasync void
. I would still lean a bit more towardsasync Task
, just becauseasync void
to me implies "event handler".
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 15:52
|
show 1 more comment
Avoid async void
. It has tricky semantics around error handling; I know some people call it "fire and forget" but I usually use the phrase "fire and crash".
The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async/await in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
You don't need async
/ await
. Just call it like this:
Task.Run(A);
Avoid async void
. It has tricky semantics around error handling; I know some people call it "fire and forget" but I usually use the phrase "fire and crash".
The question is: Given a synchronous method A(), how can I call it asynchronously using async/await in a fire-and-forget manner without getting a solution that is more complicated than the "old way"
You don't need async
/ await
. Just call it like this:
Task.Run(A);
answered Oct 9 '12 at 16:06
Stephen ClearyStephen Cleary
277k46462585
277k46462585
4
what if A() has async method calls in it?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:32
2
I mean, how do you avoid the warnings about not awaiting a task?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:40
13
That warning is there because fire-and-forget in anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. If you're positively sure that's what you want to do, you can assign the result to an unused local variable like this:var _ = Task.Run(A);
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 14:12
Thanks Stephen, and, yes, fire and forget is what I want, its a socket accept loop, async void seems perfect. Given that the method always properly handles exceptions (jaylee.org/post/2012/07/08/…) would you agree or am I just going to get in a pickle?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 15:03
4
@AnthonyJohnston: I meant calling a fire-and-forget method from anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. In your case, since you always handle exceptions within the method, there's little difference betweenasync Task
andasync void
. I would still lean a bit more towardsasync Task
, just becauseasync void
to me implies "event handler".
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 15:52
|
show 1 more comment
4
what if A() has async method calls in it?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:32
2
I mean, how do you avoid the warnings about not awaiting a task?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:40
13
That warning is there because fire-and-forget in anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. If you're positively sure that's what you want to do, you can assign the result to an unused local variable like this:var _ = Task.Run(A);
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 14:12
Thanks Stephen, and, yes, fire and forget is what I want, its a socket accept loop, async void seems perfect. Given that the method always properly handles exceptions (jaylee.org/post/2012/07/08/…) would you agree or am I just going to get in a pickle?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 15:03
4
@AnthonyJohnston: I meant calling a fire-and-forget method from anasync
method is almost certainly a mistake. In your case, since you always handle exceptions within the method, there's little difference betweenasync Task
andasync void
. I would still lean a bit more towardsasync Task
, just becauseasync void
to me implies "event handler".
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 15:52
4
4
what if A() has async method calls in it?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:32
what if A() has async method calls in it?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:32
2
2
I mean, how do you avoid the warnings about not awaiting a task?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:40
I mean, how do you avoid the warnings about not awaiting a task?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 11:40
13
13
That warning is there because fire-and-forget in an
async
method is almost certainly a mistake. If you're positively sure that's what you want to do, you can assign the result to an unused local variable like this: var _ = Task.Run(A);
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 14:12
That warning is there because fire-and-forget in an
async
method is almost certainly a mistake. If you're positively sure that's what you want to do, you can assign the result to an unused local variable like this: var _ = Task.Run(A);
– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 14:12
Thanks Stephen, and, yes, fire and forget is what I want, its a socket accept loop, async void seems perfect. Given that the method always properly handles exceptions (jaylee.org/post/2012/07/08/…) would you agree or am I just going to get in a pickle?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 15:03
Thanks Stephen, and, yes, fire and forget is what I want, its a socket accept loop, async void seems perfect. Given that the method always properly handles exceptions (jaylee.org/post/2012/07/08/…) would you agree or am I just going to get in a pickle?
– Anthony Johnston
Jan 26 '13 at 15:03
4
4
@AnthonyJohnston: I meant calling a fire-and-forget method from an
async
method is almost certainly a mistake. In your case, since you always handle exceptions within the method, there's little difference between async Task
and async void
. I would still lean a bit more towards async Task
, just because async void
to me implies "event handler".– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 15:52
@AnthonyJohnston: I meant calling a fire-and-forget method from an
async
method is almost certainly a mistake. In your case, since you always handle exceptions within the method, there's little difference between async Task
and async void
. I would still lean a bit more towards async Task
, just because async void
to me implies "event handler".– Stephen Cleary
Jan 26 '13 at 15:52
|
show 1 more comment
As noted in the other answers, and by this excellent blog post you want to avoid using async void
outside of UI event handlers. If you want a safe "fire and forget" async
method, consider using this pattern (credit to @ReedCopsey; this method is one he gave to me in a chat conversation):
Create an extension method for
Task
. It runs the passedTask
and catches/logs any exceptions:
static async void FireAndForget(this Task task)
{
try
{
await task;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// log errors
}
}
Always use
Task
styleasync
methods when creating them, neverasync void
.
Invoke those methods this way:
MyTaskAsyncMethod().FireAndForget();
You don't need to await
it (nor will it generate the await
warning). It will also handle any errors correctly, and as this is the only place you ever put async void
, you don't have to remember to put try/catch
blocks everywhere.
This also gives you the option of not using the async
method as a "fire and forget" method if you actually want to await
it normally.
2
Well, if I have a Task, I'll just Run it, no?
– mmix
Jan 12 '15 at 16:13
2
@mmix That depends, you could use aTask
object and run it, but thats not using await/async. This is how you do "fire and forget" with await/async. Note that this is much more useful when you are invoking Async framework methods, and you want to use them in a "fire and forget" sort of way.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 12 '15 at 17:07
2
Hi, its an old post, but generally the idea was to use language "flow" elements to achieve fire and forget, without implicitly using Task object as such. WE came to a conclusion that its not possible since calling async does not raise new thread until it awaits. If I have Task object then I just Run()-it and it will fire and forget.
– mmix
Jan 18 '15 at 10:58
@mmix No problem, this just came up in a discussion I had with Reed Copsey, and in a separate question we had a discussion about usingasync void
to do fire-and-forget where I was pointed to this question as to why not to do that. I was adding this as the "correct" way to utilizeasync void
to do that.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 18 '15 at 18:33
1
@Wellspring due to how ASP.NET manages the lifetime of objects post-request, there's whole libraries to manage that (like Hangfire). I wouldn't recommend just sending a task out in that kind of scenario
– BradleyDotNET
Dec 11 '18 at 20:40
|
show 6 more comments
As noted in the other answers, and by this excellent blog post you want to avoid using async void
outside of UI event handlers. If you want a safe "fire and forget" async
method, consider using this pattern (credit to @ReedCopsey; this method is one he gave to me in a chat conversation):
Create an extension method for
Task
. It runs the passedTask
and catches/logs any exceptions:
static async void FireAndForget(this Task task)
{
try
{
await task;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// log errors
}
}
Always use
Task
styleasync
methods when creating them, neverasync void
.
Invoke those methods this way:
MyTaskAsyncMethod().FireAndForget();
You don't need to await
it (nor will it generate the await
warning). It will also handle any errors correctly, and as this is the only place you ever put async void
, you don't have to remember to put try/catch
blocks everywhere.
This also gives you the option of not using the async
method as a "fire and forget" method if you actually want to await
it normally.
2
Well, if I have a Task, I'll just Run it, no?
– mmix
Jan 12 '15 at 16:13
2
@mmix That depends, you could use aTask
object and run it, but thats not using await/async. This is how you do "fire and forget" with await/async. Note that this is much more useful when you are invoking Async framework methods, and you want to use them in a "fire and forget" sort of way.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 12 '15 at 17:07
2
Hi, its an old post, but generally the idea was to use language "flow" elements to achieve fire and forget, without implicitly using Task object as such. WE came to a conclusion that its not possible since calling async does not raise new thread until it awaits. If I have Task object then I just Run()-it and it will fire and forget.
– mmix
Jan 18 '15 at 10:58
@mmix No problem, this just came up in a discussion I had with Reed Copsey, and in a separate question we had a discussion about usingasync void
to do fire-and-forget where I was pointed to this question as to why not to do that. I was adding this as the "correct" way to utilizeasync void
to do that.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 18 '15 at 18:33
1
@Wellspring due to how ASP.NET manages the lifetime of objects post-request, there's whole libraries to manage that (like Hangfire). I wouldn't recommend just sending a task out in that kind of scenario
– BradleyDotNET
Dec 11 '18 at 20:40
|
show 6 more comments
As noted in the other answers, and by this excellent blog post you want to avoid using async void
outside of UI event handlers. If you want a safe "fire and forget" async
method, consider using this pattern (credit to @ReedCopsey; this method is one he gave to me in a chat conversation):
Create an extension method for
Task
. It runs the passedTask
and catches/logs any exceptions:
static async void FireAndForget(this Task task)
{
try
{
await task;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// log errors
}
}
Always use
Task
styleasync
methods when creating them, neverasync void
.
Invoke those methods this way:
MyTaskAsyncMethod().FireAndForget();
You don't need to await
it (nor will it generate the await
warning). It will also handle any errors correctly, and as this is the only place you ever put async void
, you don't have to remember to put try/catch
blocks everywhere.
This also gives you the option of not using the async
method as a "fire and forget" method if you actually want to await
it normally.
As noted in the other answers, and by this excellent blog post you want to avoid using async void
outside of UI event handlers. If you want a safe "fire and forget" async
method, consider using this pattern (credit to @ReedCopsey; this method is one he gave to me in a chat conversation):
Create an extension method for
Task
. It runs the passedTask
and catches/logs any exceptions:
static async void FireAndForget(this Task task)
{
try
{
await task;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// log errors
}
}
Always use
Task
styleasync
methods when creating them, neverasync void
.
Invoke those methods this way:
MyTaskAsyncMethod().FireAndForget();
You don't need to await
it (nor will it generate the await
warning). It will also handle any errors correctly, and as this is the only place you ever put async void
, you don't have to remember to put try/catch
blocks everywhere.
This also gives you the option of not using the async
method as a "fire and forget" method if you actually want to await
it normally.
edited Jan 9 '15 at 1:24
answered Jan 9 '15 at 1:19
BradleyDotNETBradleyDotNET
51.5k86889
51.5k86889
2
Well, if I have a Task, I'll just Run it, no?
– mmix
Jan 12 '15 at 16:13
2
@mmix That depends, you could use aTask
object and run it, but thats not using await/async. This is how you do "fire and forget" with await/async. Note that this is much more useful when you are invoking Async framework methods, and you want to use them in a "fire and forget" sort of way.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 12 '15 at 17:07
2
Hi, its an old post, but generally the idea was to use language "flow" elements to achieve fire and forget, without implicitly using Task object as such. WE came to a conclusion that its not possible since calling async does not raise new thread until it awaits. If I have Task object then I just Run()-it and it will fire and forget.
– mmix
Jan 18 '15 at 10:58
@mmix No problem, this just came up in a discussion I had with Reed Copsey, and in a separate question we had a discussion about usingasync void
to do fire-and-forget where I was pointed to this question as to why not to do that. I was adding this as the "correct" way to utilizeasync void
to do that.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 18 '15 at 18:33
1
@Wellspring due to how ASP.NET manages the lifetime of objects post-request, there's whole libraries to manage that (like Hangfire). I wouldn't recommend just sending a task out in that kind of scenario
– BradleyDotNET
Dec 11 '18 at 20:40
|
show 6 more comments
2
Well, if I have a Task, I'll just Run it, no?
– mmix
Jan 12 '15 at 16:13
2
@mmix That depends, you could use aTask
object and run it, but thats not using await/async. This is how you do "fire and forget" with await/async. Note that this is much more useful when you are invoking Async framework methods, and you want to use them in a "fire and forget" sort of way.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 12 '15 at 17:07
2
Hi, its an old post, but generally the idea was to use language "flow" elements to achieve fire and forget, without implicitly using Task object as such. WE came to a conclusion that its not possible since calling async does not raise new thread until it awaits. If I have Task object then I just Run()-it and it will fire and forget.
– mmix
Jan 18 '15 at 10:58
@mmix No problem, this just came up in a discussion I had with Reed Copsey, and in a separate question we had a discussion about usingasync void
to do fire-and-forget where I was pointed to this question as to why not to do that. I was adding this as the "correct" way to utilizeasync void
to do that.
– BradleyDotNET
Jan 18 '15 at 18:33
1
@Wellspring due to how ASP.NET manages the lifetime of objects post-request, there's whole libraries to manage that (like Hangfire). I wouldn't recommend just sending a task out in that kind of scenario
– BradleyDotNET
Dec 11 '18 at 20:40
2
2
Well, if I have a Task, I'll just Run it, no?
– mmix
Jan 12 '15 at 16:13
Well, if I have a Task, I'll just Run it, no?
– mmix
Jan 12 '15 at 16:13
2
2
@mmix That depends, you could use a
Task
object and run it, but thats not using await/async. This is how you do "fire and forget" with await/async. Note that this is much more useful when you are invoking Async framework methods, and you want to use them in a "fire and forget" sort of way.– BradleyDotNET
Jan 12 '15 at 17:07
@mmix That depends, you could use a
Task
object and run it, but thats not using await/async. This is how you do "fire and forget" with await/async. Note that this is much more useful when you are invoking Async framework methods, and you want to use them in a "fire and forget" sort of way.– BradleyDotNET
Jan 12 '15 at 17:07
2
2
Hi, its an old post, but generally the idea was to use language "flow" elements to achieve fire and forget, without implicitly using Task object as such. WE came to a conclusion that its not possible since calling async does not raise new thread until it awaits. If I have Task object then I just Run()-it and it will fire and forget.
– mmix
Jan 18 '15 at 10:58
Hi, its an old post, but generally the idea was to use language "flow" elements to achieve fire and forget, without implicitly using Task object as such. WE came to a conclusion that its not possible since calling async does not raise new thread until it awaits. If I have Task object then I just Run()-it and it will fire and forget.
– mmix
Jan 18 '15 at 10:58
@mmix No problem, this just came up in a discussion I had with Reed Copsey, and in a separate question we had a discussion about using
async void
to do fire-and-forget where I was pointed to this question as to why not to do that. I was adding this as the "correct" way to utilize async void
to do that.– BradleyDotNET
Jan 18 '15 at 18:33
@mmix No problem, this just came up in a discussion I had with Reed Copsey, and in a separate question we had a discussion about using
async void
to do fire-and-forget where I was pointed to this question as to why not to do that. I was adding this as the "correct" way to utilize async void
to do that.– BradleyDotNET
Jan 18 '15 at 18:33
1
1
@Wellspring due to how ASP.NET manages the lifetime of objects post-request, there's whole libraries to manage that (like Hangfire). I wouldn't recommend just sending a task out in that kind of scenario
– BradleyDotNET
Dec 11 '18 at 20:40
@Wellspring due to how ASP.NET manages the lifetime of objects post-request, there's whole libraries to manage that (like Hangfire). I wouldn't recommend just sending a task out in that kind of scenario
– BradleyDotNET
Dec 11 '18 at 20:40
|
show 6 more comments
To me it seems that "awaiting" something and "fire and forget" are two orthogonal concepts. You either start a method asynchronously and don't care for the result, or you want to resume executing on the original context after the operation has finished (and possibly use a return value), which is exactly what await does. If you just want to execute a method on a ThreadPool thread (so that your UI doesn't get blocked), go for
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoIt2("Test2"))
and you'll be fine.
2
the more I experiment with it the more it seems so. async is just for processes where you have meaningful continuation on the results from asynchronous task. No continuation need, no support (other than Task.Yield()). I guess I got sniped by marketing again...
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:34
When on subject, any real differences betweendelegate.BeginInvoke
andTask.Factory.StartNew
?
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:35
1
@mmix, the biggest difference with using Task is that if an exception occurs in the Task, it will wind up being thrown in the finalizer of the Task object, since there is nothing observing the faulted state of the Task. If you don't register for the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException event, this can potentially cause a nasty crash without triggering your usual last-resort logging methods. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not crashing until GC causes the finalizer to run, whereas an invoked delegate will crash the app immediately after the exception.
– Dan Bryant
Oct 9 '12 at 15:56
6
@DanBryant: This has changed in .NET 4.5.UnobservedTaskException
will no longer crash the process; if you don't handle it, the exceptions are silently ignored.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 16:11
1
I felt the same way at first; it took me a long time to come around to appreciating that design.Task
-based code in the future will beasync
-based; in this new world, an unobservedTask
is a fire-and-forgetTask
. This doesn't violate the fail-fast philosophy any more than the old behavior. The old behavior would crash by default because some error happened some indeterminate time before, so the old behavior wasn't "fail-fast" anyway.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 17:15
|
show 2 more comments
To me it seems that "awaiting" something and "fire and forget" are two orthogonal concepts. You either start a method asynchronously and don't care for the result, or you want to resume executing on the original context after the operation has finished (and possibly use a return value), which is exactly what await does. If you just want to execute a method on a ThreadPool thread (so that your UI doesn't get blocked), go for
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoIt2("Test2"))
and you'll be fine.
2
the more I experiment with it the more it seems so. async is just for processes where you have meaningful continuation on the results from asynchronous task. No continuation need, no support (other than Task.Yield()). I guess I got sniped by marketing again...
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:34
When on subject, any real differences betweendelegate.BeginInvoke
andTask.Factory.StartNew
?
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:35
1
@mmix, the biggest difference with using Task is that if an exception occurs in the Task, it will wind up being thrown in the finalizer of the Task object, since there is nothing observing the faulted state of the Task. If you don't register for the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException event, this can potentially cause a nasty crash without triggering your usual last-resort logging methods. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not crashing until GC causes the finalizer to run, whereas an invoked delegate will crash the app immediately after the exception.
– Dan Bryant
Oct 9 '12 at 15:56
6
@DanBryant: This has changed in .NET 4.5.UnobservedTaskException
will no longer crash the process; if you don't handle it, the exceptions are silently ignored.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 16:11
1
I felt the same way at first; it took me a long time to come around to appreciating that design.Task
-based code in the future will beasync
-based; in this new world, an unobservedTask
is a fire-and-forgetTask
. This doesn't violate the fail-fast philosophy any more than the old behavior. The old behavior would crash by default because some error happened some indeterminate time before, so the old behavior wasn't "fail-fast" anyway.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 17:15
|
show 2 more comments
To me it seems that "awaiting" something and "fire and forget" are two orthogonal concepts. You either start a method asynchronously and don't care for the result, or you want to resume executing on the original context after the operation has finished (and possibly use a return value), which is exactly what await does. If you just want to execute a method on a ThreadPool thread (so that your UI doesn't get blocked), go for
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoIt2("Test2"))
and you'll be fine.
To me it seems that "awaiting" something and "fire and forget" are two orthogonal concepts. You either start a method asynchronously and don't care for the result, or you want to resume executing on the original context after the operation has finished (and possibly use a return value), which is exactly what await does. If you just want to execute a method on a ThreadPool thread (so that your UI doesn't get blocked), go for
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoIt2("Test2"))
and you'll be fine.
answered Oct 9 '12 at 15:26
Daniel C. WeberDaniel C. Weber
751311
751311
2
the more I experiment with it the more it seems so. async is just for processes where you have meaningful continuation on the results from asynchronous task. No continuation need, no support (other than Task.Yield()). I guess I got sniped by marketing again...
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:34
When on subject, any real differences betweendelegate.BeginInvoke
andTask.Factory.StartNew
?
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:35
1
@mmix, the biggest difference with using Task is that if an exception occurs in the Task, it will wind up being thrown in the finalizer of the Task object, since there is nothing observing the faulted state of the Task. If you don't register for the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException event, this can potentially cause a nasty crash without triggering your usual last-resort logging methods. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not crashing until GC causes the finalizer to run, whereas an invoked delegate will crash the app immediately after the exception.
– Dan Bryant
Oct 9 '12 at 15:56
6
@DanBryant: This has changed in .NET 4.5.UnobservedTaskException
will no longer crash the process; if you don't handle it, the exceptions are silently ignored.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 16:11
1
I felt the same way at first; it took me a long time to come around to appreciating that design.Task
-based code in the future will beasync
-based; in this new world, an unobservedTask
is a fire-and-forgetTask
. This doesn't violate the fail-fast philosophy any more than the old behavior. The old behavior would crash by default because some error happened some indeterminate time before, so the old behavior wasn't "fail-fast" anyway.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 17:15
|
show 2 more comments
2
the more I experiment with it the more it seems so. async is just for processes where you have meaningful continuation on the results from asynchronous task. No continuation need, no support (other than Task.Yield()). I guess I got sniped by marketing again...
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:34
When on subject, any real differences betweendelegate.BeginInvoke
andTask.Factory.StartNew
?
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:35
1
@mmix, the biggest difference with using Task is that if an exception occurs in the Task, it will wind up being thrown in the finalizer of the Task object, since there is nothing observing the faulted state of the Task. If you don't register for the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException event, this can potentially cause a nasty crash without triggering your usual last-resort logging methods. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not crashing until GC causes the finalizer to run, whereas an invoked delegate will crash the app immediately after the exception.
– Dan Bryant
Oct 9 '12 at 15:56
6
@DanBryant: This has changed in .NET 4.5.UnobservedTaskException
will no longer crash the process; if you don't handle it, the exceptions are silently ignored.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 16:11
1
I felt the same way at first; it took me a long time to come around to appreciating that design.Task
-based code in the future will beasync
-based; in this new world, an unobservedTask
is a fire-and-forgetTask
. This doesn't violate the fail-fast philosophy any more than the old behavior. The old behavior would crash by default because some error happened some indeterminate time before, so the old behavior wasn't "fail-fast" anyway.
– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 17:15
2
2
the more I experiment with it the more it seems so. async is just for processes where you have meaningful continuation on the results from asynchronous task. No continuation need, no support (other than Task.Yield()). I guess I got sniped by marketing again...
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:34
the more I experiment with it the more it seems so. async is just for processes where you have meaningful continuation on the results from asynchronous task. No continuation need, no support (other than Task.Yield()). I guess I got sniped by marketing again...
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:34
When on subject, any real differences between
delegate.BeginInvoke
and Task.Factory.StartNew
?– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:35
When on subject, any real differences between
delegate.BeginInvoke
and Task.Factory.StartNew
?– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:35
1
1
@mmix, the biggest difference with using Task is that if an exception occurs in the Task, it will wind up being thrown in the finalizer of the Task object, since there is nothing observing the faulted state of the Task. If you don't register for the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException event, this can potentially cause a nasty crash without triggering your usual last-resort logging methods. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not crashing until GC causes the finalizer to run, whereas an invoked delegate will crash the app immediately after the exception.
– Dan Bryant
Oct 9 '12 at 15:56
@mmix, the biggest difference with using Task is that if an exception occurs in the Task, it will wind up being thrown in the finalizer of the Task object, since there is nothing observing the faulted state of the Task. If you don't register for the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException event, this can potentially cause a nasty crash without triggering your usual last-resort logging methods. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not crashing until GC causes the finalizer to run, whereas an invoked delegate will crash the app immediately after the exception.
– Dan Bryant
Oct 9 '12 at 15:56
6
6
@DanBryant: This has changed in .NET 4.5.
UnobservedTaskException
will no longer crash the process; if you don't handle it, the exceptions are silently ignored.– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 16:11
@DanBryant: This has changed in .NET 4.5.
UnobservedTaskException
will no longer crash the process; if you don't handle it, the exceptions are silently ignored.– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 16:11
1
1
I felt the same way at first; it took me a long time to come around to appreciating that design.
Task
-based code in the future will be async
-based; in this new world, an unobserved Task
is a fire-and-forget Task
. This doesn't violate the fail-fast philosophy any more than the old behavior. The old behavior would crash by default because some error happened some indeterminate time before, so the old behavior wasn't "fail-fast" anyway.– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 17:15
I felt the same way at first; it took me a long time to come around to appreciating that design.
Task
-based code in the future will be async
-based; in this new world, an unobserved Task
is a fire-and-forget Task
. This doesn't violate the fail-fast philosophy any more than the old behavior. The old behavior would crash by default because some error happened some indeterminate time before, so the old behavior wasn't "fail-fast" anyway.– Stephen Cleary
Oct 9 '12 at 17:15
|
show 2 more comments
My sense is that these 'fire and forget' methods were largely artifacts of needing a clean way to interleave UI and background code so that you can still write your logic as a series of sequential instructions. Since async/await takes care of marshalling through the SynchronizationContext, this becomes less of an issue. The inline code in a longer sequence effectively becomes your 'fire and forget' blocks that would previously have been launched from a routine in a background thread. It's effectively an inversion of the pattern.
The main difference is that the blocks between awaits are more akin to Invoke than BeginInvoke. If you need behavior more like BeginInvoke, you can call the next asynchronous method (returning a Task), then don't actually await the returned Task until after the code that you wanted to 'BeginInvoke'.
public async void Method()
{
//Do UI stuff
await SomeTaskAsync();
//Do more UI stuff (as if called via Invoke from a thread)
var nextTask = NextTaskAsync();
//Do UI stuff while task is running (as if called via BeginInvoke from a thread)
await nextTask;
}
3
Actually we use F&F to avoid blocking the http caller and it has more to do with caller limitations than our own. The logic is sound because caller does not expect a response other than message received (the actual process response will be posted on another channel unrelated to this, or http for that matter).
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:30
add a comment |
My sense is that these 'fire and forget' methods were largely artifacts of needing a clean way to interleave UI and background code so that you can still write your logic as a series of sequential instructions. Since async/await takes care of marshalling through the SynchronizationContext, this becomes less of an issue. The inline code in a longer sequence effectively becomes your 'fire and forget' blocks that would previously have been launched from a routine in a background thread. It's effectively an inversion of the pattern.
The main difference is that the blocks between awaits are more akin to Invoke than BeginInvoke. If you need behavior more like BeginInvoke, you can call the next asynchronous method (returning a Task), then don't actually await the returned Task until after the code that you wanted to 'BeginInvoke'.
public async void Method()
{
//Do UI stuff
await SomeTaskAsync();
//Do more UI stuff (as if called via Invoke from a thread)
var nextTask = NextTaskAsync();
//Do UI stuff while task is running (as if called via BeginInvoke from a thread)
await nextTask;
}
3
Actually we use F&F to avoid blocking the http caller and it has more to do with caller limitations than our own. The logic is sound because caller does not expect a response other than message received (the actual process response will be posted on another channel unrelated to this, or http for that matter).
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:30
add a comment |
My sense is that these 'fire and forget' methods were largely artifacts of needing a clean way to interleave UI and background code so that you can still write your logic as a series of sequential instructions. Since async/await takes care of marshalling through the SynchronizationContext, this becomes less of an issue. The inline code in a longer sequence effectively becomes your 'fire and forget' blocks that would previously have been launched from a routine in a background thread. It's effectively an inversion of the pattern.
The main difference is that the blocks between awaits are more akin to Invoke than BeginInvoke. If you need behavior more like BeginInvoke, you can call the next asynchronous method (returning a Task), then don't actually await the returned Task until after the code that you wanted to 'BeginInvoke'.
public async void Method()
{
//Do UI stuff
await SomeTaskAsync();
//Do more UI stuff (as if called via Invoke from a thread)
var nextTask = NextTaskAsync();
//Do UI stuff while task is running (as if called via BeginInvoke from a thread)
await nextTask;
}
My sense is that these 'fire and forget' methods were largely artifacts of needing a clean way to interleave UI and background code so that you can still write your logic as a series of sequential instructions. Since async/await takes care of marshalling through the SynchronizationContext, this becomes less of an issue. The inline code in a longer sequence effectively becomes your 'fire and forget' blocks that would previously have been launched from a routine in a background thread. It's effectively an inversion of the pattern.
The main difference is that the blocks between awaits are more akin to Invoke than BeginInvoke. If you need behavior more like BeginInvoke, you can call the next asynchronous method (returning a Task), then don't actually await the returned Task until after the code that you wanted to 'BeginInvoke'.
public async void Method()
{
//Do UI stuff
await SomeTaskAsync();
//Do more UI stuff (as if called via Invoke from a thread)
var nextTask = NextTaskAsync();
//Do UI stuff while task is running (as if called via BeginInvoke from a thread)
await nextTask;
}
answered Oct 9 '12 at 15:16
Dan BryantDan Bryant
24.1k34488
24.1k34488
3
Actually we use F&F to avoid blocking the http caller and it has more to do with caller limitations than our own. The logic is sound because caller does not expect a response other than message received (the actual process response will be posted on another channel unrelated to this, or http for that matter).
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:30
add a comment |
3
Actually we use F&F to avoid blocking the http caller and it has more to do with caller limitations than our own. The logic is sound because caller does not expect a response other than message received (the actual process response will be posted on another channel unrelated to this, or http for that matter).
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:30
3
3
Actually we use F&F to avoid blocking the http caller and it has more to do with caller limitations than our own. The logic is sound because caller does not expect a response other than message received (the actual process response will be posted on another channel unrelated to this, or http for that matter).
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:30
Actually we use F&F to avoid blocking the http caller and it has more to do with caller limitations than our own. The logic is sound because caller does not expect a response other than message received (the actual process response will be posted on another channel unrelated to this, or http for that matter).
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:30
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f12803012%2ffire-and-forget-with-async-vs-old-async-delegate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
async/await is not really designed for offloading synchronous workloads onto another thread. I've used async/await in some pretty huge projects with not a
Thread.Yield
in sight. I see this code as an abuse of the the async await philosophy. If there's no async IO, async/await is probably the wrong solution.– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:23
I would disagree, especially in my case; there is no sound reason to force http requestor to wait for a complete process to finish to receive a response available at the very begining. The rest can be safely offloaded. The only question really is can async/await help, make worse or is just unusable in this scenario. I must admit I had different ideas about what it was.
– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:41
1
I don't disagree that the work might need offloading. I'm saying that using
async/await
combined withTask.Yield
has a bad smell. UsingThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
would be a better fit here. After all, that's really what you're trying to do... send the work to the ThreadPool with a resonably minimal code footprint, right?– spender
Oct 9 '12 at 15:45
1
oh, ok. fair comment, I misunderstood your claim. I guess I just thought that with async I'll just call a method and it will magically start on another thread :). Speaking of different approaches, does anyone know of a comparison between the three?
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
vsTask.Factory.StartNew
vsdelegate.BeginInvoke
? If I am going to make changes, I might as well do it in the best available way.– mmix
Oct 9 '12 at 15:49