Well, it depends. If you have implemented the event the easy way, by using a standard MulticastDelegate, i.e. public event BlahBlahEventHandler BlahBlah it's not a good idea (I'm not sure, but that could really corrupt the single linked list MS gods use there, and at least, you cannot guarantee whether it will work in the next framework version), otherwise, if you are the one, building and using the delegate invocation list, you could do that. Still, I don't consider this a good practice. Why do you want to do this? To save the subscriber from remembering that it should unsubscribe? You'd better have a method, taking a delegate, which is invoked when the "event" happens.
Cheers, Stoyan -----Original Message----- From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Diesel Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Delegate Invocation Lists ========================================================================== Would it be acceptable practice for an event handler to unsubscribe itself whilst handling an event? My concern here lies with ... * corruption of the delegate invocation list whilst the event publisher is still busy publishing. * blocking of the event handler until the event publisher has completed processing the list Thanks =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR http://www.develop.com Some .NET courses you may be interested in: NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ http://www.develop.com Some .NET courses you may be interested in: NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
