Creating Responsive .NET Applications with Microsoft Concurrency and Coordination Runtime (CCR)


If developers want to leverage muti-cores, without a doubt they'll need to tackle Threading and race conditions, typically referred to as Concurrency. Concurrency is complicated. So, Microsoft has been working to make Concurrency more accessible to a wider range of developers doing things like embedding Concurrency features in their languages and building APIs around Concurrency.

Concurrency and Coordination Runtime (CCR) is one of Microsoft's Concurrency APIs available via download to MSDN subscribers. CCR is part of the "CCR and DSS Toolkit 2008 R2 Standard Edition". Although CCR was originally constructed for Robotics solutions the patterns it employs can be applied to a broader set of domains. In fact, if you're considering or currently using the .NET framework ThreadPool or Threading, you might want to check out CCR. Before you do, some guidance may be helpful, so, I'm going to show you how CCR can fit into your next .NET Framework Concurrency-dependent application.

.NET Asynchronous Programming Model (APM)

I'm making a big assumption that, if you're looking at Threading and the Threadpool you're probably also going to leverage some aspect of the .NET Framework Asynchronous Programming Model (APM). APM dwells in many parts of the .NET Framework like, for example, file reading and writing in the System.IO namespace. APM functions typically follow the following pattern:

  • There is a Begin____ (BeginRead, BeginWrite, etc.) operation. The Begin operation accepts a delegate that receives a "state" parameter and a result parameter.
  • There is also an End___ operation. End is invoked inside the delegate passed to the Begin operation.
  • There are typically 2 distinct execution results, the operation succeeded or the operation failed.

There may be some wrinkle to the pattern above, but that's the general APM idea. APM is important if a developer is building a responsive application. Rather than blocking main thread execution for an operation to complete, APM continues a threads execution and wakes some other part of an application up when an operation completes.

APM is typically used in conjunction with the Threadpool. I like to think of the Threadpool as being composed of three things:

  • A Queue you place your function into.
  • A set of spinning threads awaiting work.
  • An object that assigns a function from the queue to an available spinning thread.

In a running application, at any time, multiple threads may be attempting to change the same place in memory (shared state). Alongside APM and the Threadpool a developer must synchronize access to shared state. A developer typically employs various locks and mutexes to signal exclusive access to state.

Briefly summarizing, a typical APM solution contains the following components:

  • One of the APM "callback-oriented" APIs
  • Threading and some sort of queue-like data structure to control thread usage
  • Synchronized access to state.

All of these aspects and more are elegantly captured in the CCR data structures.

CCR Overview

A complete introduction to all aspects of the CCR is beyond the scope of this article. So, instead, I'm focusing on the core classes and classes more closely associated with the APM solution I outlined above.

Main CCR classes appear in the graphic below:

Click here for larger image

Figure 1: CCR Main classes

Dispatcher works a lot like the ThreadPool. Dispatcher maintains a group of threads. However, instead of pulling from a single Queue, a Dispatcher may pull from multiple Queues (Dispatcher Queues). Dispatchers operate on their Dispatcher Queues round-robin style. Typically a Dispatcher is configured to create a thread for each core on the hosting computer. I'll cover more about the Dispatcher later in the article.

Creating Responsive .NET Applications with Microsoft Concurrency and Coordination Runtime (CCR)

The Arbiter and Port class comprise the other main CCR classes.

A developer works through an Arbiter class to configure how a delegate function is executed by the Dispatcher. Through an Arbiter, for example, a developer can configure a function to run exclusively thus addressing the shared state aspect of Concurrency. Arbiter methods also bind operations to a Dispatcher Queue.

Port is a sort of entry point in the CCR. Once a developer has created a Dispatcher, Dispatcher Queues, and enlisted an Arbiter to lay out how a delegate should be executed; everything is initiated through a Port. Ports are generic classes. The Port Post method receives a predefined class that, in turn, initiates the whole process.

Now I'm going to put the CCR to work on an APM solution using the Ping class built into the .NET Framework.

One Ping Only

Large amounts of Pinging with the .NET Ping class nicely illustrates the need for APM functions. Pinging an unused IP address will eventually fail, but only after a timeout. Pinging a series of IP addresses synchronously will execute in the total duration it takes to complete all the Pings. Pinging asynchronously will execute in the total duration of the longest Ping.

Pinging asynchronously results in a big performance difference if, for example, you're Pinging a wide range of IP addresses and most of the addresses are unused.

My Console application sample Pings some URLs and returns the results.

Clearly, I didn't need CCR to do APM Pinging. So, I imposed two requirements on my sample that really illustrate when CCR can be a better platform for APM. My special requirements are as follows:

  1. I wanted exceptions to be given a higher priority than successful Pings.
  2. I wanted to avoid doing locking, but I still wanted to update state.

Now let's look at some code!

Dispatcher and DispatcherQueue

CCRMediator class encapsulates most of the sample application. The class's constructor creates the CCR infrastructure.

  public CCRMediator(PingState pingState)
      _pingState = pingState;
      _dispatcher = new Dispatcher(0, "CCRMediator Threads");
      _dq = new DispatcherQueue("CCRMediator DispatcherQueue", _dispatcher);
      _dqExceptions = new DispatcherQueue("CCRMediator DispatcherQueue Exceptions", _dispatcher);
  public void Start()

As you can see, there is not much to setting up the core CCR classes. Everything is given a name to aid in debugging. Passing zero to Dispatcher constructor instructs the class to create a thread on each Core of the computer.

I mentioned earlier that I wanted to give exceptions a higher priority. So I built a DispatcherQueue for exceptions only rather than mixing Exceptions among the other responses. Having a dedicated queue effectively puts exceptions to the top of the queue. As the Dispatcher executes in a round-robin, it will run as follows:

  • Check the Exception queue, execute the topmost item (if something exists),
  • Then move to the successful queue and execute the topmost item
  • Then move back to the Exception queue and so forth

Dispatchers and DispatcherQueues perform the execution. Configuring and initiating the execution process is done using Ports and Arbiters.

Creating Responsive .NET Applications with Microsoft Concurrency and Coordination Runtime (CCR)

Ports and Arbiters

Most of how the CCR is configured to execute is housed in the GatherPingRepliesModifyState function in the CCRMediator class. The code appears below:

  private void GatherPingRepliesModifyState()
      Port<PINGEXCEPTIONINFO> portException = new Port<PINGEXCEPTIONINFO>();
      PingCompletedEventHandler cbfunct = null;
      //Get a callback function with the ports wired to it
      cbfunct = AsyncCallbackFactory.Create(portPing,portException);
      Arbiter.Activate(_dq, Arbiter.Interleave(
         new TeardownReceiverGroup(),
         // Move Receive to here if code touches shared data to ensure thread safety
         new ExclusiveReceiverGroup(
             Arbiter.Receive(true, portPing, PingCompletedCB)
         new ConcurrentReceiverGroup()
      Arbiter.Activate(_dqExceptions, Arbiter.Interleave(
          new TeardownReceiverGroup(),
          // Move Receive to here if code touches shared data to ensure thread safety
          new ExclusiveReceiverGroup(
              Arbiter.Receive(true, portException,
                  delegate(PingExceptionInfo e)
                      string resource = e.resource.ToString();
                      _pingState.UpdateState(resource, "FAILURE");
                      PingReplyWriter.WriteReply(_pingState, resource);
          new ConcurrentReceiverGroup()

As I stated earlier Ports are generic. Ports are also relatively simple lightweight classes. Later in the article I'll discuss the AsyncCallbackFactory class. For now, it's just important to note that it returns the APM PingCompletedEventFunction delegate with the Exception and Success Port wired to the appropriate response.

Often an executing function will modify some data in the application, earlier I referred to this as shared state. In the sample, I modify the PingState class, which stores the results of the Ping. Normally an application gets a lock on a data structure before modifying it. Instead I used an Interleave. In an Interleave, when code associated with the Port assigned to an ExclusiveReceiverGroup executes, all threads in the Dispatcher are suspended until the execution completes.

The sample also uses two techniques for associating an executing function to the Arbiter. First I use a private function in the CCRMediator class matching the PingCompleteEventFunction signature. Then I use an inline delegate function. A third option would be a lambda (=>) expression. Also important to point out is, when the code executes, it may execute on another thread. Like the ThreadPool, CCR handles all the details seamlessly for you.

Creating Responsive .NET Applications with Microsoft Concurrency and Coordination Runtime (CCR)


I borrowed the idea behind this class from the "Concurrent Affairs Concurrency and Control Runtime" article You can access the article in the Resources section at the end of the article. AsyncCallBackFactory appears below.

  sealed class AsyncCallbackFactory
  //Wires the Ports to the Callback function so when async completes
  //the results are posted to a port.
  public static PingCompletedEventHandler Create(Port<PINGCOMPLETEDEVENTARGS> portResult,
     Port<PINGEXCEPTIONINFO> portException)
      AsyncCallbackMethodAdapter builder =
         new AsyncCallbackMethodAdapter(portResult, portException);
      return builder.CompletedCallBack;
  //This class wires the ports to the callback method
  private sealed class AsyncCallbackMethodAdapter
      private Port<PINGCOMPLETEDEVENTARGS> _portResult;
      private Port<PINGEXCEPTIONINFO> _portException;
      internal AsyncCallbackMethodAdapter(Port<PINGCOMPLETEDEVENTARGS> portResult,
         Port<PINGEXCEPTIONINFO> portException)
          _portResult = portResult;
          _portException = portException;
      // Called to process result of completion
      internal void CompletedCallBack(object sender, PingCompletedEventArgs e)
          if (e.Error == null)
              // Post success item to success Port
              PingExceptionInfo info = new PingExceptionInfo();
              info.Ex = e.Error;
              info.resource = e.UserState.ToString();
              //Send the error object

As I stated earlier, the class returns a function matching the PingCompletedEventFunction delegate. Essentially, the Create function returns a reference to the CompletedCallBack function inside a private class called AsyncCallBackMethodAdapter which is known only to the AsyncCallBackFactory class.

This may be an odd way of implementing this, but consider other APM operations you may be performing using other classes in the .NET Framework. Most APM "End" functions result in success or an Exception. It may be useful to handle them all in a similar way and to have an overloaded static Create function for each APM class' operation. If an assignment is repeated why not perform the process once and be done with it? Also using an intermediate class allows for some common processing before posting to the Ports.

Further Investigation

There is quite a bit more to CCR. Here are examples of other CCR features not demonstrated in the example code.

Policies allow a DispatcherQueue to throttle message processing. Policies are useful when only a handful of the most recent messages make sense to process and older messages should be ignored. Timers are another useful CCR feature. Utilize timers when a queue must receive a message before an elapsed span of time and perform an alternative action if the time expires first. Joins allow a developer to chain response dependencies together. For example, a Join allows a developer to configure a response when a particular number of Ports are activated. In a future article, I'll demonstrate how I applied CCR to a MSMQ solution.


Concurrency and Coordination Runtime (CCR) originated in Robotics Studio, but can be leveraged outside of Robotics. In fact, CCR is a great platform for the .NET Framework Asynchronous Programming Model (APM). In this article I demonstrated how CCR can work with the .Net Ping class' APM functions.


CCR and DSS Home Page
Concurrent Affairs Concurrency and Control Runtime
PDC 2008 presentation: The Concurrency and Coordination Runtime and Decentralized Software Services Toolkit
CCR Programming - Jeffrey Richter and George Chrysanthakopoulos

About the Author

Jeffrey Juday

Jeff is a software developer specializing in enterprise application integration solutions utilizing BizTalk, SharePoint, WCF, WF, and SQL Server. Jeff has been developing software with Microsoft tools for more than 15 years in a variety of industries including: military, manufacturing, financial services, management consulting, and computer security. Jeff is a Microsoft BizTalk MVP. Jeff spends his spare time with his wife Sherrill and daughter Alexandra.


  • There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment!

Leave a Comment
  • Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.

Top White Papers and Webcasts

  • Live Event Date: May 7, 2014 @ 1:00 p.m. ET / 10:00 a.m. PT This eSeminar will explore three popular games engines and how they empower developers to create exciting, graphically rich, and high-performance games for Android® on Intel® Architecture. Join us for a deep dive as experts describe the features, tools, and common challenges using Marmalade, App Game Kit, and Havok game engines, as well as a discussion of the pros and cons of each engine and how they fit into your development …

  • With JRebel, developers get to see their code changes immediately, fine-tune their code with incremental changes, debug, explore and deploy their code with ease (both locally and remotely), and ultimately spend more time coding instead of waiting for the dreaded application redeploy to finish. Every time a developer tests a code change it takes minutes to build and deploy the application. JRebel keeps the app server running at all times, so testing is instantaneous and interactive.

Most Popular Programming Stories

More for Developers

Latest Developer Headlines

RSS Feeds