Question

I don’t see the different between C#’s (and VB’s) new async features, and .NET 4.0’s Task Parallel Library. Take, for example, Eric Lippert’s code from here:

async void ArchiveDocuments(List<Url> urls) {
    Task archive = null;
    for(int i = 0; i < urls.Count; ++i) {
        var document = await FetchAsync(urls[i]);
        if (archive != null)
            await archive;
        archive = ArchiveAsync(document);
    }
}

It seems that the await keyword is serving two different purposes. The first occurrence (FetchAsync) seems to mean, "If this value is used later in the method and its task isn’t finished, wait until it completes before continuing." The second instance (archive) seems to mean, "If this task is not yet finished, wait right now until it completes." If I’m wrong, please correct me.

Couldn’t it just as easily be written like this?

void ArchiveDocuments(List<Url> urls) {
    for(int i = 0; i < urls.Count; ++i) {
        var document = FetchAsync(urls[i]);       // removed await
        if (archive != null)
            archive.Wait();                       // changed to .Wait()
        archive = ArchiveAsync(document.Result);  // added .Result
    }
}

I’ve replaced the first await with a Task.Result where the value is actually needed, and the second await with Task.Wait(), where the wait is actually occurring. The functionality is (1) already implemented, and (2) much closer semantically to what is actually happening in the code.

I do realize that an async method is rewritten as a state machine, similar to iterators, but I also don’t see what benefits that brings. Any code that requires another thread to operate (such as downloading) will still require another thread, and any code that doesn’t (such as reading from a file) could still utilize the TPL to work with only a single thread.

I’m obviously missing something huge here; can anybody help me understand this a little better?

Answer 1

I think the misunderstanding arises here:

It seems that the await keyword is serving two different purposes. The first occurrence (FetchAsync) seems to mean, “If this value is used later in the method and its task isn’t finished, wait until it completes before continuing.” The second instance (archive) seems to mean, “If this task is not yet finished, wait right now until it completes.” If I’m wrong, please correct me.

This is actually completely incorrect. Both of these have the same meaning.

In your first case:

var document = await FetchAsync(urls[i]);

What happens here, is that the runtime says “Start calling FetchAsync, then return the current execution point to the thread calling this method.” There is no “waiting” here – instead, execution returns to the calling synchronization context, and things keep churning. At some point in the future, FetchAsync’s Task will complete, and at that point, this code will resume on the calling thread’s synchronization context, and the next statement (assigning the document variable) will occur.

Execution will then continue until the second await call – at which time, the same thing will happen – if the Task<T> (archive) isn’t complete, execution will be released to the calling context – otherwise, the archive will be set.

In the second case, things are very different – here, you’re explicitly blocking, which means that the calling synchronization context will never get a chance to execute any code until your entire method completes. Granted, there is still asynchrony, but the asynchrony is completely contained within this block of code – no code outside of this pasted code will happen on this thread until all of your code completes.