Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 41/66 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Best way to implement game loop without freezing UI thread

    - by Matt H
    I'm trying to make a simple 2D game in Java. So far I have a JFrame, with a menubar, and a class which extends JPanel and overrides it's paint method. Now, I need to get a game loop going, where I will update the position of images and so on. However, I'm stuck at how best to achieve this. Should I use multi-threading, because surely, if you put an infinite loop on the main thread, the UI (and thus my menu bar) will freeze up? Here's my code so far: import java.awt.Color; import java.awt.Graphics; import javax.swing.JPanel; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class GameCanvas extends JPanel { public void paint(Graphics g) { while (true) { g.setColor(Color.DARK_GRAY); try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } import javax.swing.JFrame; import javax.swing.JMenu; import javax.swing.JMenuBar; import javax.swing.JMenuItem; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class Main extends JFrame { GameCanvas canvas = new GameCanvas(); final int FRAME_HEIGHT = 400; final int FRAME_WIDTH = 400; public static void main(String args[]) { new Main(); } public Main() { super("Game"); JMenuBar menuBar = new JMenuBar(); JMenu fileMenu = new JMenu("File"); JMenuItem startMenuItem = new JMenuItem("Pause"); menuBar.add(fileMenu); fileMenu.add(startMenuItem); super.add(canvas); super.setVisible(true); super.setSize(FRAME_WIDTH, FRAME_WIDTH); super.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); super.setJMenuBar(menuBar); } } Any pointers/tips? Also, where should I put my loop? In my main class, or my GameCanvas class? Any help is appreciated, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is a new thread in a Visual Studio test project aborted when the test ends?

    - by Michel
    Hi, i have to do some message exchange with a 3rd party (in a website). When the client posts a page, i start the message exchange. When that doesn't succeed for some reason, i report this to the client by rendering the page with a message. On the background, in a separate thread, i start a process to send abort messages to the 3rd party. I can't do this while the user is waiting for the page to come back, because it might take a few minutes. But in a test project, the test ends when the message to the 3rd party is sent, and after the new thread is started. But it seems that the new thread also ends, when the test is done. Is that normal behaviour? I do start the thread in a new class with a reference to 2 objects from the class which tries to send the message in the first place, may that be a problem?

    Read the article

  • What are some good ways to do intermachine locking?

    - by mike
    Our server cluster consists of 20 machines, each with 10 pids of 5 threads. We'd like some way to prevent any two threads, in any pid, on any machine, from modifying the same object at the same time. Our code's written in Python and runs on Linux, if that helps narrow things down. Also, it's a pretty rare case that two such threads want to do this, so we'd prefer something that optimizes the "only one thread needs this object" case to be really fast, even if it means that the "one thread has locked this object and another one needs it" case isn't great. What are some of the best practices?

    Read the article

  • Ruby: would using Fibers increase my DB insert throughput?

    - by Zombies
    Currently I am using Ruby 1.9.1 and the 'ruby-mysql' gem, which unlike the 'mysql' gem is written in ruby only. This is pretty slow actually, as it seems to insert at a rate of almost 1 per second (SLOOOOOWWWWWW). And I have a lot of inserts to make too, its pretty much what this script does ultamitely. I am using just 1 connection (since I am using just one thread). I am hoping to speed things up by creating a fiber that will create a new DB connection insert 1-3 records close the DB connection I would imagine launching 20-50 of these would greatly increase DB throughput. Am I correct to go along this route? I feel that this is the best option, as opposed to refactoring all of my DB code :(

    Read the article

  • Several client waiting for the same event

    - by ff8mania
    I'm developing a communication API to be used by a lot of generic clients to communicate with a proprietary system. This proprietary system exposes an API, and I use a particular classes to send and wait messages from this system: obviously the system alert me that a message is ready using an event. The event is named OnMessageArrived. My idea is to expose a simple SendSyncMessage(message) method that helps the user/client to simply send a message and the method returns the response. The client: using ( Communicator c = new Communicator() ) { response = c.SendSync(message); } The communicator class is done in this way: public class Communicator : IDisposable { // Proprietary system object ExternalSystem c; String currentRespone; Guid currentGUID; private readonly ManualResetEvent _manualResetEvent; private ManualResetEvent _manualResetEvent2; String systemName = "system"; String ServerName = "server"; public Communicator() { _manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); //This methods are from the proprietary system API c = SystemInstance.CreateInstance(); c.Connect(systemName , ServerName); } private void ConnectionStarter( object data ) { c.OnMessageArrivedEvent += c_OnMessageArrivedEvent; _manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); c.OnMessageArrivedEvent-= c_OnMessageArrivedEvent; } public String SendSync( String Message ) { Thread _internalThread = new Thread(ConnectionStarter); _internalThread.Start(c); _manualResetEvent2 = new ManualResetEvent(false); String toRet; int messageID; currentGUID = Guid.NewGuid(); c.SendMessage(Message, "Request", currentGUID.ToString()); _manualResetEvent2.WaitOne(); toRet = currentRespone; return toRet; } void c_OnMessageArrivedEvent( int Id, string root, string guid, int TimeOut, out int ReturnCode ) { if ( !guid.Equals(currentGUID.ToString()) ) { _manualResetEvent2.Set(); ReturnCode = 0; return; } object newMessage; c.FetchMessage(Id, 7, out newMessage); currentRespone = newMessage.ToString(); ReturnCode = 0; _manualResetEvent2.Set(); } } I'm really noob in using waithandle, but my idea was to create an instance that sends the message and waits for an event. As soon as the event arrived, checks if the message is the one I expect (checking the unique guid), otherwise continues to wait for the next event. This because could be (and usually is in this way) a lot of clients working concurrently, and I want them to work parallel. As I implemented my stuff, at the moment if I run client 1, client 2 and client 3, client 2 starts sending message as soon as client 1 has finished, and client 3 as client 2 has finished: not what I'm trying to do. Can you help me to fix my code and get my target? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to use locks/synchronization here

    - by MasterGberry
    I have this code block here and i need to make sure the rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch is synchronized between threads properly. I was going to use synchronize but that i don't think will work here because of the variable being used in the if statement. I read online about final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(); but I am a bit confused on how to use it in this case properly with the try/finally block. Can I get a quick example? Thanks // start synchronization if (rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch.get(rankedType).size() >= 2) { Player player1 = rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch.get(rankedType).remove(); Player player2 = rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch.get(rankedType).remove(); // end synchronization // ... I don't want this all to be synchronized, just after the first 2 remove() } else { // end synchronization // ... }

    Read the article

  • Java Executor: Small tasks or big ones?

    - by Arash Shahkar
    Consider one big task which could be broken into hundreds of small, independently-runnable tasks. To be more specific, each small task is to send a light network request and decide upon the answer received from the server. These small tasks are not expected to take longer than a second, and involve a few servers in total. I have in mind two approaches to implement this using the Executor framework, and I want to know which one's better and why. Create a few, say 5 to 10 tasks each involving doing a bunch of send and receives. Create a single task (Callable or Runnable) for each send & receive and schedule all of them (hundreds) to be run by the executor. I'm sorry if my question shows that I'm lazy to test these and see for myself what's better (at least performance-wise). My question, while looking after an answer to this specific case, has a more general aspect. In situations like these when you want to use an executor to do all the scheduling and other stuff, is it better to create lots of small tasks or to group those into a less number of bigger tasks?

    Read the article

  • Parallel software?

    - by mavric
    What is the meaning of "parallel software" and what are the differences between "parallel software" and "regular software"? What are its advantages and disadvantages? Does writing "parallel software" require a specific hardware or programming language ?

    Read the article

  • non blocking client server chat application in java using nio

    - by Amith
    I built a simple chat application using nio channels. I am very much new to networking as well as threads. This application is for communicating with server (Server / Client chat application). My problem is that multiple clients are not supported by the server. How do I solve this problem? What's the bug in my code? public class Clientcore extends Thread { SelectionKey selkey=null; Selector sckt_manager=null; public void coreClient() { System.out.println("please enter the text"); BufferedReader stdin=new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)); SocketChannel sc = null; try { sc = SocketChannel.open(); sc.configureBlocking(false); sc.connect(new InetSocketAddress(8888)); int i=0; while (!sc.finishConnect()) { } for(int ii=0;ii>-22;ii++) { System.out.println("Enter the text"); String HELLO_REQUEST =stdin.readLine().toString(); if(HELLO_REQUEST.equalsIgnoreCase("end")) { break; } System.out.println("Sending a request to HelloServer"); ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(HELLO_REQUEST.getBytes()); sc.write(buffer); } } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { if (sc != null) { try { sc.close(); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } public void run() { try { coreClient(); } catch(Exception ej) { ej.printStackTrace(); }}} public class ServerCore extends Thread { SelectionKey selkey=null; Selector sckt_manager=null; public void run() { try { coreServer(); } catch(Exception ej) { ej.printStackTrace(); } } private void coreServer() { try { ServerSocketChannel ssc = ServerSocketChannel.open(); try { ssc.socket().bind(new InetSocketAddress(8888)); while (true) { sckt_manager=SelectorProvider.provider().openSelector(); ssc.configureBlocking(false); SocketChannel sc = ssc.accept(); register_server(ssc,SelectionKey.OP_ACCEPT); if (sc == null) { } else { System.out.println("Received an incoming connection from " + sc.socket().getRemoteSocketAddress()); printRequest(sc); System.err.println("testing 1"); String HELLO_REPLY = "Sample Display"; ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(HELLO_REPLY.getBytes()); System.err.println("testing 2"); sc.write(buffer); System.err.println("testing 3"); sc.close(); }}} catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { if (ssc != null) { try { ssc.close(); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } catch(Exception E) { System.out.println("Ex in servCORE "+E); } } private static void printRequest(SocketChannel sc) throws IOException { ReadableByteChannel rbc = Channels.newChannel(sc.socket().getInputStream()); WritableByteChannel wbc = Channels.newChannel(System.out); ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(1024); // read 1024 bytes while (rbc.read(b) != -1) { b.flip(); while (b.hasRemaining()) { wbc.write(b); System.out.println(); } b.clear(); } } public void register_server(ServerSocketChannel ssc,int selectionkey_ops)throws Exception { ssc.register(sckt_manager,selectionkey_ops); }} public class HelloClient { public void coreClientChat() { Clientcore t=new Clientcore(); new Thread(t).start(); } public static void main(String[] args)throws Exception { HelloClient cl= new HelloClient(); cl.coreClientChat(); }} public class HelloServer { public void coreServerChat() { ServerCore t=new ServerCore(); new Thread(t).start(); } public static void main(String[] args) { HelloServer st= new HelloServer(); st.coreServerChat(); }}

    Read the article

  • Pass a Message From Thread to Update UI

    - by Jay Dee
    Ive created a new thread for a file browser. The thread reads the contents of a directory. What I want to do is update the UI thread to draw a graphical representation of the files and folders. I know I can't update the UI from within a new thread so what I want to do is: whilst the file scanning thread iterates through a directories files and folders pass a file path string back to the UI thread. The handler in the UI thread then draws the graphical representation of the file passed back. public class New_Project extends Activity implements Runnable { private Handler handler = new Handler() { @Override public void handleMessage(Message msg) { Log.d("New Thread","Proccess Complete."); Intent intent = new Intent(); setResult(RESULT_OK, intent); finish(); } }; public void getFiles(){ //if (!XMLEFunctions.canReadExternal(this)) return; pd = ProgressDialog.show(this, "Reading Directory.", "Please Wait...", true, false); Log.d("New Thread","Called"); Thread thread = new Thread(this); thread.start(); } public void run() { Log.d("New Thread","Reading Files"); getFiles(); handler.sendEmptyMessage(0); } public void getFiles() { for (int i=0;i<=allFiles.length-1;i++){ //I WANT TO PASS THE FILE PATH BACK TU A HANDLER IN THE UI //SO IT CAN BE DRAWN. **passFilePathBackToBeDrawn(allFiles[i].toString());** } } }

    Read the article

  • Race condition for thread startup

    - by Ozzah
    A similar question was asked here, but the answers generally all seem to relate to the lambda notation. I get a similar result without the lambda so I thought I'd ask for some clarification: Say I have something like this: for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) (new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate() { Console.WriteLine("Thread " + i); }))).Start(); One would expect the following output: Thread 0 Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3 Thread 4 Now I realise that the threads aren't started in any particular order, so let's just assume that the above lines can come out in any order. But that is not what happens. What instead happens: Thread 3 Thread 4 Thread 4 Thread 4 Thread 4 or something similar, which leads me to believe that rather than passing the value if i, it is passing the reference. (Which is weird, since an int is a value type). Doing something like this: for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) (new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate() { int j = i; Console.WriteLine("Thread " + j); }))).Start(); does not help either, even though we have made a copy of i. I am assuming the reason is that it hasn't made a copy of i in time. Doing something like this: for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { (new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate() { Console.WriteLine("Thread " + i); }))).Start(); Thread.Sleep(50); } seems to fix the problem, however it is extremely undesirable as we're wasting 50ms on each iteration, not to mention the fact that if the computer is heavily loaded then maybe 50ms may not be enough. Here is a sample with my current, specific problem: Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(delgate() { threadLogic(param1, param2, param3, param4); })); t.Start(); param1 = param2 = param3 = param4 = null; with: void threadLogic(object param1, object param2, object param3, object param4) { // Do some stuff here... } I want threadLogic() to run in its own thread, however the above code gives a null reference exception. I assume this is because the values are set to null before the thread has had a chance to start. Again, putting a Thread.Sleep(100) works, but it is an awful solution from every aspect. What do you guys recommend for this particular type of race condition?

    Read the article

  • Servlet 3 spec and ThreadLocal

    - by mindas
    As far as I know, Servlet 3 spec introduces asynchronous processing feature. Among other things, this will mean that the same thread can and will be reused for processing another, concurrent, HTTP request(s). This isn't revolutionary, at least for people who worked with NIO before. Anyway, this leads to another important thing: no ThreadLocal variables as a temporary storage for the request data. Because if the same thread suddenly becomes the carrier thread to a different HTTP request, request-local data will be exposed to another request. All of that is my pure speculation based on reading articles, I haven't got time to play with any Servlet 3 implementations (Tomcat 7, GlassFish 3.0.X, etc.). So, the questions: Am I correct to assume that ThreadLocal will cease to be a convenient hack to keep the request data? Has anybody played with any of Servlet 3 implementations and tried using ThreadLocals to prove the above? Apart from storing data inside HTTP Session, are there any other similar easy-to-reach hacks you could possibly advise?

    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

  • [C++] Is it possible to use threads to speed up file reading ?

    - by Mister Mystère
    Hi there, I want to read a file as fast as possible (40k lines) [Edit : the rest is obsolete]. Edit: Andres Jaan Tack suggested a solution based on one thread per file, and I want to be sure I got this (thus this is the fastest way) : One thread per entry file reads it whole and stocks its content in a container associated (- as many containers as there are entry files) One thread calculates the linear combination of every cell read by the input threads, and stocks the results in the exit container (associated to the output file). One thread writes by block (every 4kB of data, so about 10 lines) the content of the output container. Should I deduce that I must not use m-mapped files (because the program's on standby waiting for the data) ? Thanks aforehand. Sincerely, Mister mystère.

    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

  • 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

  • Is memory allocation in linux non-blocking?

    - by Mark
    I am curious to know if the allocating memory using a default new operator is a non-blocking operation. e.g. struct Node { int a,b; }; ... Node foo = new Node(); If multiple threads tried to create a new Node and if one of them was suspended by the OS in the middle of allocation, would it block other threads from making progress? The reason why I ask is because I had a concurrent data structure that created new nodes. I then modified the algorithm to recycle the nodes. The throughput performance of the two algorithms was virtually identical on a 24 core machine. However, I then created an interference program that ran on all the system cores in order to create as much OS pre-emption as possible. The throughput performance of the algorithm that created new nodes decreased by a factor of 5 relative the the algorithm that recycled nodes. I'm curious to know why this would occur. Thanks. *Edit : pointing me to the code for the c++ memory allocator for linux would be helpful as well. I tried looking before posting this question, but had trouble finding it.

    Read the article

  • Wait until user press enter in textbox in another form and return value

    - by ekapek
    Hello, I am new to C# and I'm trying to do sth like this: myList = list of 1000+ string values; 1.StartNewThreads(50); //50 is the numbers of new threads 2.DoSth1(next value from myList); 3.DoSth2(); 4. var value = { ShowNewImageForm(); //show only if not another ImageForm is displayed if another is show - wait WaitUntilUserPressEnterInTextBox(); ReturnValueFormTextbox(); } 5.DoSth3(); 6.StartNewThread(); For now I have: foreach(String s in myList ) { DoSth1(s); DoSth2(); DoSth3(); } And now I'm looking for ideas to points 1,3,6 Can You suggest me how to resolve this? How to start 50 threads How to get value from textbox in another form when user press enter

    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

  • 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

  • Thread sleep and thread join.

    - by Dhruv Gairola
    hi guys, if i put a thread to sleep in a loop, netbeans gives me a caution saying Invoking Thread.sleep in loop can cause performance problems. However, if i were to replace the sleep with join, no such caution is given. Both versions compile and work fine tho. My code is below (check the last few lines for "Thread.sleep() vs t.join()"). public class Test{ //Display a message, preceded by the name of the current thread static void threadMessage(String message) { String threadName = Thread.currentThread().getName(); System.out.format("%s: %s%n", threadName, message); } private static class MessageLoop implements Runnable { public void run() { String importantInfo[] = { "Mares eat oats", "Does eat oats", "Little lambs eat ivy", "A kid will eat ivy too" }; try { for (int i = 0; i < importantInfo.length; i++) { //Pause for 4 seconds Thread.sleep(4000); //Print a message threadMessage(importantInfo[i]); } } catch (InterruptedException e) { threadMessage("I wasn't done!"); } } } public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException { //Delay, in milliseconds before we interrupt MessageLoop //thread (default one hour). long patience = 1000 * 60 * 60; //If command line argument present, gives patience in seconds. if (args.length > 0) { try { patience = Long.parseLong(args[0]) * 1000; } catch (NumberFormatException e) { System.err.println("Argument must be an integer."); System.exit(1); } } threadMessage("Starting MessageLoop thread"); long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); Thread t = new Thread(new MessageLoop()); t.start(); threadMessage("Waiting for MessageLoop thread to finish"); //loop until MessageLoop thread exits while (t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Still waiting..."); //Wait maximum of 1 second for MessageLoop thread to //finish. /*******LOOK HERE**********************/ Thread.sleep(1000);//issues caution unlike t.join(1000) /**************************************/ if (((System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime) > patience) && t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Tired of waiting!"); t.interrupt(); //Shouldn't be long now -- wait indefinitely t.join(); } } threadMessage("Finally!"); } } As i understand it, join waits for the other thread to complete, but in this case, arent both sleep and join doing the same thing? Then why does netbeans throw the caution?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >