Question

Does c# have its own version of the java ‘synchronized’ keyword?

I.e. in java it can be specified either to a function, an object or a block of code, like so:

public synchronized void doImportantStuff() {    // dangerous code goes here. } 

or

public void doImportantStuff() {    // trivial stuff     synchronized(someLock) {       // dangerous code goes here.    } } 

Answer 1

First – most classes will never need to be thread-safe. Use YAGNI: only apply thread-safety when you know you actually are going to use it (and test it).

For the method-level stuff, there is [MethodImpl]:

[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)] public void SomeMethod() {/* code */} 

This can also be used on accessors (properties and events):

private int i; public int SomeProperty {     [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]     get { return i; }     [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]     set { i = value; } } 

Note that field-like events are synchronized by default, while auto-implemented properties are not:

public int SomeProperty {get;set;} // not synchronized public event EventHandler SomeEvent; // synchronized 

Personally, I don’t like the implementation of MethodImpl as it locks this or typeof(Foo) – which is against best practice. The preferred option is to use your own locks:

private readonly object syncLock = new object(); public void SomeMethod() {     lock(syncLock) { /* code */ } } 

Note that for field-like events, the locking implementation is dependent on the compiler; in older Microsoft compilers it is a lock(this) / lock(Type) – however, in more recent compilers it uses Interlocked updates – so thread-safe without the nasty parts.

This allows more granular usage, and allows use of Monitor.Wait/Monitor.Pulse etc to communicate between threads.

A related blog entry (later revisited).