Search Results

I haven't extensively tested it, but there are a few things I've noted: The class has two members which hold on to IDisposable resources. Therefore, the class must implement IDisposable as well and D …

I would make your lock a little more tight: lock (ret) { ret.AddRange(result); } But otherwise, looks like an all right implementation.

There are a couple of issues with regards to being thread-safe: 1: public IEnumerable<TKey> Keys() { return _dict.Keys.ToList(); } public TItem TryFindByKey(TKey key, out bool result) { if …

Never lock on this as your callers can also do the same and cause deadlocks where you don't expect them. See below where I create and use a private locking variable. And made i an instance variable si …

Don't expose your concrete lists: public class ActionQueue { private readonly IList<Action> actions = new List<Action>(); public IEnumerable<Action> Actions { get { …

Looks sharp to me. I'd do a little bit of declarative intent: public static class Logger { private static readonly string _conn = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["MyDatabase"]; private const …

I would say you're not using AES correctly - don't hold on to an instance of it in your class (guessing by the underscore in the name) but rather create it as needed, while holding AES's parameters (t …

Here's how I would go about it (mostly from a readability standpoint rather than a performance one - though the use of immutable data may help contribute to well-measurable performance and memory usag …

Yes, and don't lock on typeof - highly unrecommended. Also you'll need to lock whatever's adding to the QUEUE so that the multithreaded Dequeue() does not race against it. static protected void Threa …