I'm putting together a custom SynchronizedCollection<T> class so that I can have a synchronized Observable collection for my WPF application. The synchronization is provided via a ReaderWriterLockSlim, which, for the most part, has been easy to apply. The case I'm having trouble with is how to provide thread-safe enumeration of the collection. I've created a custom IEnumerator<T> nested class that looks like this:
private class SynchronizedEnumerator : IEnumerator<T>
{
private SynchronizedCollection<T> _collection;
private int _currentIndex;
internal SynchronizedEnumerator(SynchronizedCollection<T> collection)
{
_collection = collection;
_collection._lock.EnterReadLock();
_currentIndex = -1;
}
#region IEnumerator<T> Members
public T Current { get; private set;}
#endregion
#region IDisposable Members
public void Dispose()
{
var collection = _collection;
if (collection != null)
collection._lock.ExitReadLock();
_collection = null;
}
#endregion
#region IEnumerator Members
object System.Collections.IEnumerator.Current
{
get { return Current; }
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
var collection = _collection;
if (collection == null)
throw new ObjectDisposedException("SynchronizedEnumerator");
_currentIndex++;
if (_currentIndex >= collection.Count)
{
Current = default(T);
return false;
}
Current = collection[_currentIndex];
return true;
}
public void Reset()
{
if (_collection == null)
throw new ObjectDisposedException("SynchronizedEnumerator");
_currentIndex = -1;
Current = default(T);
}
#endregion
}
My concern, however, is that if the Enumerator is not Disposed, the lock will never be released. In most use cases, this is not a problem, as foreach should properly call Dispose. It could be a problem, however, if a consumer retrieves an explicit Enumerator instance. Is my only option to document the class with a caveat implementer reminding the consumer to call Dispose if using the Enumerator explicitly or is there a way to safely release the lock during finalization? I'm thinking not, since the finalizer doesn't even run on the same thread, but I was curious if there other ways to improve this.
EDIT
After thinking about this a bit and reading the responses (particular thanks to Hans), I've decided this is definitely a bad idea. The biggest issue actually isn't forgetting to Dispose, but rather a leisurely consumer creating deadlock while enumerating. I now only read-lock long enough to get a copy and return the enumerator for the copy.
