防止对象的并发访问

想象一下节点网络(更新:'节点网络'意味着同一应用程序域中的对象,而不是独立应用程序的网络)将对象相互传递(并对它们进行一些处理).C#中是否存在用于将对象的访问限制为仅实际处理它的节点的模式？

主要动机:确保线程安全(无并发访问)和对象一致性(关于存储在其中的数据).

V1:我想到这样的事情:

class TransferredObject
    {
        public class AuthLock
        {
            public bool AllowOwnerChange { get; private set; }
            public void Unlock() { AllowOwnerChange = true; }
        }

        private AuthLock currentOwner;

        public AuthLock Own()
        {
            if (currentOwner != null && !currentOwner.AllowOwnerChange)
                throw new Exception("Cannot change owner, current lock is not released.");

            return currentOwner = new AuthLock();
        }

        public void DoSomething(AuthLock authentification)
        {
            if (currentOwner != authentification)
                throw new Exception("Don't you dare!");

            // be sure, that this is only executed by the one holding the lock

            // Do something...
        }
    }

    class ProcessingNode
    {
        public void UseTheObject(TransferredObject  x)
        {
            // take ownership
            var auth = x.Own();

            // do processing
            x.DoSomething(auth);

            // release ownership
            auth.Unlock();
        }
    }

V2:相当大的开销 - 一个不太"严格"的实现可能是忽略检查并依赖于"锁定/解锁"逻辑:

class TransferredObject
    {
        private bool isLocked;

        public Lock() 
        {
            if(isLocked)
                throw new Exception("Cannot lock, object is already locked.");

            isLocked = true; 
        }
        public Unlock() { isLocked = false; }

        public void DoSomething()
        {
            if (isLocked)
                throw new Exception("Don't you dare!");

            // Do something...
        }
    }

    class ProcessingNode
    {
        public void UseTheObject(TransferredObject  x)
        {
            // take ownership
            x.Lock = true;

            // do processing
            x.DoSomething();

            // release ownership
            x.Unlock = true;
        }
    }

但是:这看起来有点不直观(并且必须传递带有错误调用的auth实例很难看).有更好的方法吗？或者这是"由设计制造"的问题？