Menu
I want to introduce a slight wait during some testing functions, to simulate a server call. Is it sane to use Thread.Sleep(int) to introduce the wait or is there a better method to have the server wait?
Note, I'll be pausing long enough for me to visually see a sufficient lag, even tho I don't expect to see such a delay in the actual app. This is for me to visualize the actual delay that could occur.
I plan on running this both in the VS2010 local debugger webserver and in IIS 7. I'm on .NET 3.5
235
Thread. sleep is bad! It blocks the current thread and renders it unusable for further work.
sleep will block a thread and task. delay will not and has a cancellation token, unless your app is pretty complex, it really doesn't matter as on the surface: task. delay and thread. sleep do pretty much the same thing.
Sleep() method belongs to Thread class. Wait() method releases lock during Synchronization. Sleep() method does not release the lock on object during Synchronization. Wait() should be called only from Synchronized context.
Sleep method causes the current thread to immediately block for the number of milliseconds or the time interval you pass to the method, and yields the remainder of its time slice to another thread. Once that interval elapses, the sleeping thread resumes execution. One thread cannot call Thread. Sleep on another thread.
Thread.Sleep(int) is what I would use.
117
If you're using MVC and SessionState your requests will be automatially serialized - so if you're checking for race conditions with a random Thread.Sleep() value then Request B will never complete before Request A even if the time slept if less.
ASP.NET MVC and Ajax, concurrent requests?
27
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
