Search Results

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

Page 298/604 | < Previous Page | 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305  | Next Page >

  • How do I pause main() until all other threads have died?

    - by thechiman
    In my program, I am creating several threads in the main() method. The last line in the main method is a call to System.out.println(), which I don't want to call until all the threads have died. I have tried calling Thread.join() on each thread however that blocks each thread so that they execute sequentially instead of in parallel. Is there a way to block the main() thread until all other threads have finished executing? Here is the relevant part of my code: public static void main(String[] args) { //some other initialization code //Make array of Thread objects Thread[] racecars = new Thread[numberOfRaceCars]; //Fill array with RaceCar objects for(int i=0; i<numberOfRaceCars; i++) { racecars[i] = new RaceCar(laps, args[i]); } //Call start() on each Thread for(int i=0; i<numberOfRaceCars; i++) { racecars[i].start(); try { racecars[i].join(); //This is where I tried to using join() //It just blocks all other threads until the current //thread finishes. } catch(InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } //This is the line I want to execute after all other Threads have finished System.out.println("It's Over!"); } Thanks for the help guys! Eric

    Read the article

  • C# start a static thread

    - by user595605
    I have a Queue of items I want to process in a thread, and any instance of a class can add items to the Queue to be processed. My idea for doing this is to have a static Thread in the class that processes the items, the only problem is that I don't know where to start this thread, since I can't start it in its initialization. Is there a way I can start a static thread? Or should I be changing the architecture completely?

    Read the article

  • Iterators over a LInked List in a Game in Java

    - by Matthew
    I am using OpenGl in android and they have a callback method called draw that gets called with out my control. (As fast as the device can handle if I am not mistaken) I have a list of "GameObjects" that have a .draw method and a .update method. I have two different threads that handle each of those. So, the question is, can I declare two different iterators in two different methods in two different threads that iterate over the same Linked List? If so, do I simply declare ListIterator<GameObject> l = objets.listIterator() each time I want a new iterator and it won't interfere with other iterators?

    Read the article

  • Is a Critical Section around an integer getter and setter redundant?

    - by Tim Gradwell
    Do critical sections inside trivial int accessors actually do anything useful? int GetFoo() { CriticalSection(crit_id); return foo; } void SetFoo(int value) { CriticalSection(crit_id); foo = value; } Is it possible for two threads to be attempting to read and write foo simultaneously? I'd have thought 'no' unless integers are written byte-at-a-time, in which case I can see the use. But I'd have though modern cpus would read/write integers in a single atomic action...

    Read the article

  • Waiting on threads

    - by Paul Reiners
    I have a method that contains the following (Java) code: doSomeThings(); doSomeOtherThings(); doSomeThings() creates some threads, each of which will run for only a finite amount of time. The problem is that I don't want doSomeOtherThings() to be called until all the threads launched by doSomeThings() are finished. (Also doSomeThings() will call methods that may launch new threads and so on. I don't want to execute doSomeOtherThings() until all these threads have finished.) This is because doSomeThings(), among other things will set myObject to null, while doSomeOtherThings() calls myObject.myMethod() and I do not want myObject to be null at that time. Is there some standard way of doing this kind of thing (in Java)?

    Read the article

  • Why are my thread being terminated ?

    - by Sephy
    Hi, I'm trying to repeat calls to methods through 3 differents threads. But after I start my threads, during the next iteration of my loop, they are all terminated so nothing is executed... The code is as follows : public static void main(String[] args) { main = new Main(); pollingThread.start(); } static Thread pollingThread = new Thread() { @Override public void run() { while (isRunning) { main.poll(); // test the state of the threads try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }; }; public void poll() { if (clientThread == null) { clientThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { //create some objects } }); clientThread.start(); } else if (clientThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } if (gestionnaireThread == null) { gestionnaireThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { //create some objects }; }); gestionnaireThread.start(); } else if (gestionnaireThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } if (marchandThread == null) { marchandThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { // create some objects }; }); marchandThread.start(); } else if (marchandThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } } And for some reason, when I test the state of my different threads, they appear as runnable and then a the 2nd iteration, they are all terminated... What am I doing wrong? I actually have no error, but the threads are terminated and so my loop keeps looping and telling me the threads are terminated.... Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Why does java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue use 'while' loops instead of 'if' around calls to

    - by theFunkyEngineer
    I have been playing with my own version of this, using 'if', and all seems to be working fine. Of course this will break down horribly if signalAll() is used instead of signal(), but if only one thread at a time is notified, how can this go wrong? Their code here - check out the put() and take() methods; a simpler and more-to-the-point implementation can be seen at the top of the JavaDoc for Condition. Relevant portion of my implementation below. public Object get() { lock.lock(); try { if( items.size() < 1 ) hasItems.await(); Object poppedValue = items.getLast(); items.removeLast(); hasSpace.signal(); return poppedValue; } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); return null; } finally { lock.unlock(); } } public void put(Object item) { lock.lock(); try { if( items.size() >= capacity ) hasSpace.await(); items.addFirst(item); hasItems.signal(); return; } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { lock.unlock(); } } P.S. I know that generally, particularly in lib classes like this, one should let the exceptions percolate up.

    Read the article

  • Can two or more threads iterate over the same List<t> without any problems?

    - by CodingCrapper
    Talking about System.Collections.Generic.List here. With example below can Method1 and Method2 execute and the same time, on different threads without any problems? Thanks class Test { private readonly List<MyData> _data; public Test() { _data = LoadData(); } private List<MyData> LoadData() { //Get data from dv. } public void Method1() { foreach (var list in _data) { //do something } } public void Method2() { foreach (var list in _data) { //do something } } }

    Read the article

  • Multithreaded Applications

    - by j-t-s
    Hi All I have been reading the articles on MSDN, but my mind is dead (this usually happens when I read MSDN (No offense MSDN, but your articles confuse me at times.)), and I'm trying to do some "background work" in may app, but not sure how. It's just a single method. But the application hangs, and I have to wait up to 1 - 3 minutes for it to become ...unhanged? Are there any simple examples that are laying 'roun online somewhere that I can have a look at/play around with? Thank you all

    Read the article

  • Any reason NOT to slap the 'synchronized' keyword everywhere?

    - by unknown
    In my java project, almost every non-static method I've written is synchronized. I've decided to fix up some code today, by removing most of the synchronized keywords. Right there I created several threading issues that took quite a while to fix, with no increase in performance. In the end I reverted everything. I don't see anyone else writing code with "synchronized" everywhere. So is there any reason I shouldn't have "synchronized" everywhere? What if I don't care too much about performance (ie. the method isn't called more than once every few seconds)?

    Read the article

  • how a thread can signal when it's finished?

    - by Kyle
    #include <iostream> #include <boost/thread.hpp> using std::endl; using std::cout; using namespace boost; mutex running_mutex; struct dostuff { volatile bool running; dostuff() : running(true) {} void operator()(int x) { cout << "dostuff beginning " << x << endl; this_thread::sleep(posix_time::seconds(2)); cout << "dostuff is done doing stuff" << endl; mutex::scoped_lock running_lock(running_mutex); running = false; } }; bool is_running(dostuff& doer) { mutex::scoped_lock running_lock(running_mutex); return doer.running; } int main() { cout << "Begin.." << endl; dostuff doer; thread t(doer, 4); if (is_running(doer)) cout << "Cool, it's running.\n"; this_thread::sleep(posix_time::seconds(3)); if (!is_running(doer)) cout << "Cool, it's done now.\n"; else cout << "still running? why\n"; // This happens! :( return 0; } Why is the output of the above program: Begin.. Cool, it's running. dostuff beginning 4 dostuff is done doing stuff still running? why How can dostuff correctly flag when it is done? I do not want to sit around waiting for it, I just want to be notified when it's done.

    Read the article

  • What does the GDI+ background thread do?

    - by uj
    Upon initialization, GDI+ (non .NET) creates a background thread, which can optionally be suppressed subject to calling some hook functions. MSDN, however, doesn't say what this thread actually does. Google doesn't seem to know either. What is it for?

    Read the article

  • Running a loop (such as one for a mock webserver) within a thread

    - by bob c
    I'm trying to run a mock webserver within a thread within a class. I've tried passing the class' @server property to the thread block but as soon as I try to do server.accept the thread stops. Is there some way to make this work? I want to basically be able to run a webserver off of this script while still taking user input via stdin.gets. Is this possible? class Server def initialize() @server = TCPServer.new(8080) end def run() @thread = Thread.new(@server) { |server| while true newsock = server.accept puts "some stuff after accept!" next if !newsock # some other stuff end } end end def processCommand() # some user commands here end test = Server.new while true do processCommand(STDIN.gets) end In the above sample, the thread dies on server.accept

    Read the article

  • Dispatcher.CheckAccess() isn't working from my console application, is there a better way.

    - by zimmer62
    I wrote an application in WPF / VB and separated the business logic and UI into different projects. The business layer uses a serial port which runs on a different thread, Now that I'm trying to write a command line interface for the same business layer, it seems to fail when .Invoke() is called. (no error, just doesn't work) I'm pretty sure the reason I had to add in checkaccess and .invoke was because I have collections that would be changed during processing the serial port data and wanted the NotifyCollectionChanged to be handled by WPF data binding. (The reason I'm not 100% sure is because it was months ago I wrote that part and it all worked great from the GUI, now adding the console app has made me rethink some of this) I would like my business layer to run these processes on the thread they were created, I need this to work from both my GUI version and the command line version. Am I misusing the Dispatcher in my business layer? Is there a better way to handle an event from the serial port, and then return to the main thread to processes the data?

    Read the article

  • Java Multi threading - Avoid duplicate request processing

    - by seawaves
    I have following multi threaded environment scenario - Requests are coming to a method and I want to avoid the duplicate processing of concurrent requests coming. As multiple similar requests might be waiting for being processed in blocked state. I used hashtable to keep track of processed request, but it will create memory leaks, so how should keep track of processed request and avoid the same requests to be processed which may be in blocking state.

    Read the article

  • how to print correctly the handling thread on Windows?

    - by make
    Hi, Could someone please tell us on how to print correctly the handling thread in windows? Actually I tried several ways but it doesn't return the right number as in Unix-variant, as such e.g.: cout << " with thread " << pthread_self << endl; cout << " with thread " << pthread_self().p << endl; Thanks for your replies:

    Read the article

  • Java Daemon Threading with JNI

    - by gwin003
    I have a Java applet that creates a new non-daemon thread like so: Thread childThread = new Thread(new MyRunnable(_this)); childThread.setDaemon(false); childThread.start(); Then my MyRunnable object calls a native method that is implemented in C++: @Override public void run() { while (true) { if (!ran) { System.out.println("isDaemon: " + Thread.currentThread().isDaemon()); _applet.invokePrintManager(_applet.fFormType, _applet.fFormName, _applet.fPrintImmediately, _applet.fDataSet); ran = true; } } } This C++ method calls into a C# DLL that shows a form. My problem is, whenever the user navigates away from the page with a Java applet on it, JVM (and my C# form) is killed. I need the form and JVM to remain open until it is closed by the user. I tried setting my thread to be a non-daemon thread, which is working because System.out.println("isDaemon: " + Thread.currentThread().isDaemon() prints isDaemon: false. Is there something related to the way that the C# form is created (is there another thread I'm not accounting for) or something I am overlooking?? My thread is not a daemon thread, but the JVM is being killed anyways.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305  | Next Page >