Is this a bad way to multithread?

[Joshua Lunsford]

Thread[] workerThread = new Thread[someInt]; for(int i = 0; i < someInt; i++) { string keyInfo = someKeyInfo().ToString(); workerThread[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(DoSomeWork(keyInfo))); workerThread[i].Start(); } foreach(Thread t in workerThread) { while(t.IsAlive()){} }

[stbaker]

I didn't think called methods could have parameters in Framework 1.1. The methods used by ThreadStart must be static.

[Robert Rohde]

Depending on the number of threads you could consider using ThreadPool. Also you should rethink the IsAlive loop. First of all it could consume much processor time so you should at least do:

foreach(Thread t in workerThread)
while(t.IsAlive())
Thread.Sleep(10);

Instead of waiting for all threads separately you could also use a counter which counts the started and terminated threads. Have a look at the Interlocked[^] class for a sample.

[Robert Rohde]

First point is correct but .Net 2.0 has a new overload for the Thread constructor accepting a ParametrizedThreadStart. Second point isn't true even under 1.1 also 'normal' functions can be used.

[stbaker]

Robert is right, just don't go thread crazy. Also, I don't know if it's still an issue on uniprocessor machines but the child thread won't start unless you call Thread.Sleep(0) in the parent after creating it.

[Andy Brummer]

If you are going to do something like that use:

foreach(Thread t in workerThread)
{
thread.Join();
}

I'd only do something like that in a simple console application and I didn't care about the results of the DoSomeWork method. Otherwise I'd use asyncronous delegates and callback methods.

---

I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon