Home/ Questions/Q 156629
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-11T10:21:40+00:00

As part of a large automation process, we are calling a third-party API that

  • 0

As part of a large automation process, we are calling a third-party API that does some work calling services on another machine. We discovered recently that every so often when the other machine is unavailable, the API call will spin away sometimes up to 40 minutes while attempting to connect to the remote server.

The API we’re using doesn’t offer a way to specify a timeout and we don’t want our program waiting around for that long, so I thought threads would be a nice way to enforce the timeout. The resulting code looks something like:

 Thread _thread = new Thread(_caller.CallServices());   _thread.Start();  _thread.Join(timeout);   if (_thread.IsAlive)  {       _thread.Abort();       throw new Exception('Timed-out attempting to connect.');  }

Basically, I want to let APICall() run, but if it is still going after timeout has elapsed, assume it is going to fail, kill it and move on.

Since I’m new to threading in C# and on the .net runtime I thought I’d ask two related questions:

Is there a better/more appropriate mechanism in the .net libraries for what I’m trying to do, and have I committed any threading gotchas in that bit of code?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Thread.Abort() is a request for the thread to abort, and gives no guarantee that it will do so in a timely manner. It is also considered bad practice (it will throw a thread abort exception in the aborted thread, but it seems like the 3rd party API offers you no other choices.

    If you know (programmatically) the address of the remote service host you should ping it before you transfer control to the 3rd party API.

    If not using a backgroundworker, you could set the thread’s IsBackgroundThread to true, so it doesn’t keep your program from terminating.

    • 0