Search Results

Search found 15087 results on 604 pages for 'python multithreading'.

Page 280/604 | < Previous Page | 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287  | Next Page >

  • Programming tutorials for people with zero experience

    - by www.aegisub.net
    A friend of mine is interested in learning how to program computers, but she knows nothing about programming. I suggested that Python might be a good language to start with, but after some googling, I couldn't find any tutorials that covered both programming and Python in an adequate way. I don't want her to go through the tiresome "learn algorithms in pseudocode first" routine. Instead, I'd like a tutorial that will explain the basic ideas while working towards a real goal, e.g. a very simple console game. Does anyone know of any such tutorials? Do you think that I'm mistaken in how I'm handling this? Is Python a bad choice? I know that something like C, C++ or Java won't work - too many details will be very counterproductive. On the other hand, I think that Lisp might be too mathematical and abstract. Python, on the other hand, will let her even do something like coding primitive graphical games in a short period of time.

    Read the article

  • Is it multitasking?

    - by Newbie
    Consider the below program myThread = new Thread( new ThreadStart( delegate { Method1(); Method2(); } ) ); Is it that 2 threads are getting called parallely(multitasking) or a single thread is calling the methods sequentially? It's urgent.

    Read the article

  • Boost threading/mutexs, why does this work?

    - by Flamewires
    Code: #include <iostream> #include "stdafx.h" #include <boost/thread.hpp> #include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp> using namespace std; boost::mutex mut; double results[10]; void doubler(int x) { //boost::mutex::scoped_lock lck(mut); results[x] = x*2; } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { boost::thread_group thds; for (int x = 10; x>0; x--) { boost::thread *Thread = new boost::thread(&doubler, x); thds.add_thread(Thread); } thds.join_all(); for (int x = 0; x<10; x++) { cout << results[x] << endl; } return 0; } Output: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Press any key to continue . . . So...my question is why does this work(as far as i can tell, i ran it about 20 times), producing the above output, even with the locking commented out? I thought the general idea was: in each thread: calculate 2*x copy results to CPU register(s) store calculation in correct part of array copy results back to main(shared) memory I would think that under all but perfect conditions this would result in some part of the results array having 0 values. Is it only copying the required double of the array to a cpu register? Or is it just too short of a calculation to get preempted before it writes the result back to ram? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • ReaderWriterLockSlim question.

    - by Kamarey
    There are lots written about the ReaderWriterLockSlim class which allows multiple read and a single write. All of these (at least that I had found) tell how to use it without much explanation why and how it works. The standard code sample is: lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock(); try { if (test if write is required) { lock.EnterWriteLock(); try { change the resourse here. } finally { lock.ExitWriteLock(); } } } finally { lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock(); } The question is: if upgradeable lock permits only a single thread to enter its section, why I should call EnterWriteLock method within? What will happen if I don't? Or what will happen if instead of EnterUpgradeableReadLock I will call EnterWriteLock and will write to a resource without using upgradeable lock at all?

    Read the article

  • Queue access to the database to avoid multiple cache items

    - by MikeJ
    I have a music related ASP.NET web site which caches a lot of static information from the database on the first request. Sometimes, the application is reset and cache is cleared while the application is on heavy load and then all http requests go to the database to retrieve that static data and cache it for other requests. How can I ensure that only one request go to the database and cache the results, so that other request simply read that info from cache and not needlessly retrieve the same info over and over again. Can I use thread locking? For example, can I do something like lock(this) { db access here }?

    Read the article

  • In MAYA 2009, is it possible to capture the cube rotate event?

    - by Rahul2047
    I need to call a function ( Maya-Python ) based on cube rotationX. For that I have to capture the event, programmatically. I tried using while loop but It stucks in the loop, Nothing can be done in that time. I tried theading (python), still same. Can it be done this or other way? If yes, How? Maya 2009 in Windows XP Some failed code references: import maya.cmds as cmds while (count < 90): lock = cmds.getAttr('pCube1.rotateX',lock=False) print lock count = count + 1 Here Python wise: #!/usr/bin/python import thread import time # Define a function for the thread def cubeRotateX( threadName, delay): count = 0 while count < 5: time.sleep(delay) count += 1 try: thread.start_new_thread( cubeRotateX, ("Thread-1", 2, ) ) except: print "Error: unable to start thread" while 1: pass

    Read the article

  • Asynchronous database update in Django?

    - by Mark
    I have a big form on my site. When the users fill it out and submit it, most of the data just gets dumped to the database, and then they get redirected to a new page. However, I'd also like to use the data to query another site, and then parse the results. That might take a bit longer. It's not essential that the user sees these results right away, so I was wondering if it's possible to asynchronously call a function that will handle this, and then return an HttpResponse from my view like usual without making them wait? If so... how? Any particular libraries I should look at?

    Read the article

  • REST WCF service locks thread when called using AJAX in an ASP.Net site

    - by Jupaol
    I have a WCF REST service consumed in an ASP.Net site, from a page, using AJAX. I want to be able to call methods from my service async, which means I will have callback handlers in my javascript code and when the methods finish, the output will be updated. The methods should run in different threads, because each method will take different time to complete their task I have the code semi-working, but something strange is happening because the first time I execute the code after compiling, it works, running each call in a different threads but subsequent calls blocs the service, in such a way that each method call has to wait until the last call ends in order to execute the next one. And they are running on the same thread. I have had the same problem before when I was using Page Methods, and I solved it by disabling the session in the page but I have not figured it out how to do the same when consuming WCF REST services Note: Methods complete time (running them async should take only 7 sec and the result should be: Execute1 - Execute3 - Execute2) Execute1 -- 2 sec Execute2 -- 7 sec Execute3 -- 4 sec Output After compiling Output subsequent calls (this is the problem) I will post the code...I'll try to simplify it as much as I can Service Contract [ServiceContract( SessionMode = SessionMode.NotAllowed )] public interface IMyService { // I have other 3 methods like these: Execute2 and Execute3 [OperationContract] [WebInvoke( RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, UriTemplate = "/Execute1", Method = "POST")] string Execute1(string param); } [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] [ServiceBehavior( InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerCall )] public class MyService : IMyService { // I have other 3 methods like these: Execute2 (7 sec) and Execute3(4 sec) public string Execute1(string param) { var t = Observable.Start(() => Thread.Sleep(2000), Scheduler.NewThread); t.First(); return string.Format("Execute1 on: {0} count: {1} at: {2} thread: {3}", param, "0", DateTime.Now.ToString(), Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString()); } } ASPX page <%@ Page EnableSessionState="False" Title="Home Page" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Site.master" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeBehind="Default.aspx.cs" Inherits="RestService._Default" %> <asp:Content ID="HeaderContent" runat="server" ContentPlaceHolderID="HeadContent"> <script type="text/javascript"> function callMethodAsync(url, data) { $("#message").append("<br/>" + new Date()); $.ajax({ cache: false, type: "POST", async: true, url: url, data: '"de"', contentType: "application/json", dataType: "json", success: function (msg) { $("#message").append("<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;" + msg); }, error: function (xhr) { alert(xhr.responseText); } }); } $(function () { $("#callMany").click(function () { $("#message").html(""); callMethodAsync("/Execute1", "hello"); callMethodAsync("/Execute2", "crazy"); callMethodAsync("/Execute3", "world"); }); }); </script> </asp:Content> <asp:Content ID="BodyContent" runat="server" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent"> <input type="button" id="callMany" value="Post Many" /> <div id="message"> </div> </asp:Content> Web.config (relevant) <system.webServer> <modules runAllManagedModulesForAllRequests="true" /> </system.webServer> <system.serviceModel> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="true" multipleSiteBindingsEnabled="true" /> <standardEndpoints> <webHttpEndpoint> <standardEndpoint name="" helpEnabled="true" automaticFormatSelectionEnabled="true" /> </webHttpEndpoint> </standardEndpoints> </system.serviceModel> Global.asax void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e) { RouteTable.Routes.Ignore("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}"); RouteTable.Routes.Add(new ServiceRoute("", new WebServiceHostFactory(), typeof(MyService))); }

    Read the article

  • Using the windows api and C++, how could I load an exe from the hard drive and run it in its own thread?

    - by returneax
    For the sake of learning I'm trying to do what the OS does when launching a program ie. parsing a PE file and giving it a thread of execution. If I have two exe's one called foo.exe and the other bar.exe, how could I have foo.exe load the contents of bar.exe into memory then have it execute from there in its own thread? I know how to get it into memory using MapViewOfFile or by simple loading the contents on the hard drive into a buffer. I'm assuming simply copying the contents of bar.exe on disk into its own suspended thread and running it wouldn't work. I am semi-familiar with PE file internals. All help is very much appreciated, of course :)

    Read the article

  • Why in the following code the output is different when I compile or run it more than once

    - by Sanjeev
    class Name implements Runnable { public void run() { for (int x = 1; x <= 3; x++) { System.out.println("Run by " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + ", x is " + x); } } } public class Threadtest { public static void main(String [] args) { // Make one Runnable Name nr = new Name(); Thread one = new Thread(nr); Thread two = new Thread(nr); Thread three = new Thread(nr); one.setName("A"); two.setName("B"); three.setName("C"); one.start(); two.start(); three.start(); } } The answer is different while compiling and running more then one time I don't know why? any idea.

    Read the article

  • Why does every thread in my application use a different hibernate session?

    - by Ittai
    Hi, I have a web-application which uses hibernate and for some reason every thread (httprequest or other threads related to queueing) uses a different session. I've implemented a HibernateSessionFactory class which looks like this: public class HibernateSessionFactory { private static final ThreadLocal<Session> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Session>(); private static Configuration configuration = new AnnotationConfiguration(); private static org.hibernate.SessionFactory sessionFactory; static { try { configuration.configure(configFile); sessionFactory = configuration.buildSessionFactory(); } catch (Exception e) {} } private HibernateSessionFactory() {} public static Session getSession() throws HibernateException { Session session = (Session) threadLocal.get(); if (session == null || !session.isOpen()) { if (sessionFactory == null) { rebuildSessionFactory();//This method basically does what the static init block does } session = (sessionFactory != null) ? sessionFactory.openSession(): null; threadLocal.set(session); } return session; } //More non relevant methods here. Now from my testing it seems that the threadLocal member is indeed initialized only once when the class is first loaded by the JVM but for some reason when different threads access the getSession() method they use different sessions. When a thread first accesses this class (Session) threadLocal.get(); will return null but as expected all other access requests will yeild the same session. I'm not sure how this can be happening as the threadLocal variable is final and the method threadLocal.set(session) is only used in the above context (which I'm 99.9% sure has to yeild a non null session as I would have encountered a NullPointerException at a different part of my app). I'm not sure this is relevant but these are the main parts of my hibernate.cfg.xml file: <hibernate-configuration> <session-factory> <property name="connection.url">someURL</property> <property name="connection.driver_class"> com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerDriver</property> <property name="dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.SQLServerDialect</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.isolation">1</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.username">User</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.password">Password</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.pool_size">10</property> <property name="show_sql">false</property> <property name="current_session_context_class">thread</property> <property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto">update</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache">false</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.provider_class">org.hibernate.cache.NoCacheProvider</property> <!-- Mapping files --> I'd appreciate any help granted and of course if anyone has any questions I'd be happy to clarify. Ittai

    Read the article

  • passing parameters to a thread

    - by assassin
    I want to pass a function that takes a parameter to the ThreadStart Constructor in C#. But, it seems that this is not possible, as I get a syntax error it I try to do something like this Thread t1 = new Thread(new Thread Start(func1(obj1)); where obj1 is an object of type List<string> (say). If I want a thread to execute this function that takes in an object as a parameter, and I plan to create 2 such threads simultaneously with different parameter values what is the best method to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • Are memory barriers necessary for atomic reference counting shared immutable data?

    - by Dietrich Epp
    I have some immutable data structures that I would like to manage using reference counts, sharing them across threads on an SMP system. Here's what the release code looks like: void avocado_release(struct avocado *p) { if (atomic_dec(p->refcount) == 0) { free(p->pit); free(p->juicy_innards); free(p); } } Does atomic_dec need a memory barrier in it? If so, what kind of memory barrier? Additional notes: The application must run on PowerPC and x86, so any processor-specific information is welcomed. I already know about the GCC atomic builtins. As for immutability, the refcount is the only field that changes over the duration of the object.

    Read the article

  • different thread accessing MemoryStream

    - by Wayne
    There's a bit of code which writes data to a MemoryStream object directly into it's data buffer by calling GetBuffer(). It also uses and updates the Position and SetLength() properties appropriately. This code works purposes 99.9999% of the time. Literally. Only every so many 100,000's of iterations it will barf. The specific problem is that the memory.Position property suddenly returns zero instead of the appropriate value. However, code was added that checks for the 0 and throws an exception which include log of the MemoryStream properties like Position and Length in a separate method. Those return the correct value. Further addition shows that when this rare condition occurs, the memory.Position only has zero inside this particular method. Okay. Obviously, this must be a threading issue. But this code is well locked. However, the nature of this software is that it's organized by "tasks" with a scheduler and so any one of several actual O/S thread may run this code at any give time--but never more than one at a time. So it's my guess that ordinarily it so happens that the same thread keeps getting used for this method and then on a rare occasion a different thread get used. Then due to compiler optimizations, the different thread never gets the correct value. It gets a "stale" value. Ordinarily in a situation like this I would apply a "volatile" keyword to the variable in question. But that (those) variables are inside the MemoryStream object. Does anyone have any other idea? Or does this mean we have to implement our own MemoryStream object? (Just like we end up having to do with practically every collection in .NET?) It's a shame to have such an awesome platform as .NET and have virtually the entire system useless as-is for seriously parallelized applications. If I'm wrong or you have other ideas, please advise. Sincerely, Wayne

    Read the article

  • Why does this threading approach not work?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I have a wierd problem with threading in an ASP.NET application. For some reason, when I run the code in the request thread, everything works as expected. But when I run it in a separate thread, nothing happens. This is verified by calling the below handler with the three flags "on", "off" and "larma" respectively - in the two first cases everything works, but in the latter nothing happens. What am I doing wrong here? In the web project I have a generic handler with the following code: If task = "on" Then Alarm.StartaLarm(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmet är PÅ") ElseIf task = "off" Then Alarm.StoppaLarm(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmet är AV") ElseIf task = "larma" Then Alarm.Larma(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmar... (stängs av automagiskt)") Else context.Response.Write("inget hände - task: " & task) End If The Alarm class has the following methods: Private Shared Sub Larma_Thread(ByVal personId As Integer) StartaLarm(personId) Thread.Sleep(1000 * 30) StoppaLarm(personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub StartaLarm(ByVal personId As Integer) SandSMS(True, personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub StoppaLarm(ByVal personId As Integer) SandSMS(False, personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub SandSMS(ByVal setOn As Boolean, ByVal personId As Integer) ... End Sub

    Read the article

  • Background thread in C#

    - by Xodarap
    When the user saves some data, I want to spin off a background thread to update my indexes and do some other random stuff. Even if there is an error in this indexing the user can't do anything about it, so there is no point in forcing the main thread to wait until the background thread finishes. I'm doing this from a ASP.NET process, so I think I should be able to do this (as the main thread exiting won't kill the process). When I set a breakpoint in the background thread's method though, the main thread also appears to stop. Is this just an artifact of visual studio's debugger, or is the main thread really not going to return until the background thread stops?

    Read the article

  • Need help understanding .net ThreadPool

    - by Meredith
    I am trying to understand what ThreadPool does, I have this .NET example: class Program { static void Main() { int c = 2; // Use AutoResetEvent for thread management AutoResetEvent[] arr = new AutoResetEvent[50]; for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; ++i) { arr[i] = new AutoResetEvent(false); } // Set the number of minimum threads ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(c, 4); // Enqueue 50 work items that run the code in this delegate function for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++) { ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate(object o) { Thread.Sleep(100); arr[(int)o].Set(); // Signals completion }, i); } // Wait for all tasks to complete WaitHandle.WaitAll(arr); } } Does this run 50 "tasks", in groups of 2 (int c) until they all finish? Or I am not understanding what it really does.

    Read the article

  • How to prevent the other threads from accessing a method when one thread is accessing a method?

    - by geeta
    I want to search for a string in 10 files and write the matching lines to a single file. I wrote the matching lines from each file to 10 output files(o/p file1,o/p file2...) and then copied those to a single file using 10 threads. But the output single file has mixed output(one line from o/p file1,another line from o/p file 2 etc...) because its accessed simultaneously by many threads. If I wait for all threads to complete and then write the single file it will be much slower. I want the output file to be written by one thread at a time. What should i do? My source code:(only writing to single file method) public void WriteSingle(File output_file,File final_output) throws IOException { synchronized(output_file){ System.out.println("Writing Single file"); FileOutputStream fo = new FileOutputStream(final_output,true); FileChannel fi = fo.getChannel(); FileInputStream fs = new FileInputStream(output_file); FileChannel fc = fs.getChannel(); int maxCount = (64 * 1024 * 1024) - (32 * 1024); long size = fc.size(); long position = 0; while (position < size) { position += fc.transferTo(position, maxCount, fi); } } }

    Read the article

  • Using lock(obj) inside a recursive call

    - by Amby
    As per my understanding a lock is not released until the runtime completes the code block of the lock(obj) ( because when the block completes it calls Monitor.Exit(obj). With this understanding i am not able to understand the reason behind the behaviour of the following code. private static string obj = ""; private static void RecurseSome(int number) { Console.WriteLine(number); lock (obj) { RecurseSome(++number); } } //Call: RecurseSome(0) //Output: 0 1 2 3...... stack overflow exception There must be some concept that i am missing. Please help.

    Read the article

  • Explicit call of Runnable.run

    - by klaudio
    Hi, I have a question. Somebody, who was working on my code before me, created some method and passed Runnable as parameter, more likely: void myMethod(Runnable runnable){ runnable.run(); } Then calling myMethod out of main looks like: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new Runnable(){ public void run() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } So, to supply parameter to myMethod I need to instantiate object of (in this case anonymous) class implementing Runnable. My question is: is it necessary to use Runnable in this example? Can I use any different interface? I mean I can create new interface with single method i.e. interface MyInterface{ void doThis(); } then change look of myMethod: void myMethod(MyInterface myObject){ myObject.doThis(); } And of course client too: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new MyInterface (){ public void doThis() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } Or maybe something is about Runnable?!

    Read the article

  • C++ - how does Sleep() and cin work?

    - by quano
    Just curious. How does actually the function Sleep() work (declared in windows.h)? Maybe not just that implementation, but anyone. With that I mean - how is it implemented? How can it make the code "stop" for a specific time? Also curious about how cin and those actually work. What do they do exactly? The only way I know how to "block" something from continuing to run is with a while loop, but considering that that takes a huge amount of processing power in comparison to what's happening when you're invoking methods to read from stdin (just compare a while (true) to a read from stdin), I'm guessing that isn't what they do.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287  | Next Page >