Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I am picking up C# 4.0 and one of the things which is confusing me, is the barrier concept.
Is this not just like using the WaitAll method of WaitHandle? Doesn’t that wait for all threads to finish?
I learnt the barrier construct from this page: http://www.managed-world.com/archive/2009/02/09/an-intro-to-barrier.aspx
However, it seems just like the WaitAll method. What am I missing? What’s the difference here?
Thanks.
It sounds like you are curious as to why a Barrier would be preferred over a WaitHandle + WaitForAll derivative? Both can achieve a similar goal if structured properly.
I’m not extremely familiar with Barrier but one advantage that jumps out at me is a resource issue. To synchronize N threads with a Barrier requires only a single Barrier instance. To synchronize N threads via a WaitHandle and WaitAll requires N handles. These resources are cheap but not free. Reducing the number of resources to synchronize a group of threads has it’s advantages.