Home/ Questions/Q 8672191
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-12T19:08:24+00:00

I need a thread-safe version of a SortedList<T,U> , but unlike its generic form

  • 0

I need a thread-safe version of a SortedList<T,U>, but unlike its generic form the non-generic form doesn’t appear to have Synchronized functionality. Is there a different trick I can use to get a thread-safe version? Or will I have to resort to using lock (SyncRoot) manually?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Short answer: no you have to resort lock.

    Even if in the new namespace System.Collections.Concurrent you have thread safe collections the thread safe version of SortedList<T, U> isn’t there.
    If you need a to protect each call to SortedList<T, U> with a lock or a ReadWriterLockSlim (when applicable) or, in alternative, to create a thread safe wrapper for SortedList<T, U> (in the same way Synchronized() does).

    Longer answer: no you do not have anything ready but you can achieve the same result using together OrderablePartitioner<TSource> (to extract one item per time) and ConcurrentBag<T>. Frankly speaking I don’t know if there is any ROI with this strategy because if you do not need a partitioner then you simply add complexity to something shouldn’t be.

    • 0