Search Results

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

Page 49/66 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

  • Cleanest Way to Invoke Cross-Thread Events

    - by Nick
    I find that the .NET event model is such that I'll often be raising an event on one thread and listening for it on another thread. I was wondering what the cleanest way to marshal an event from a background thread onto my UI thread is. Based on the community suggestions, I've used this: // earlier in the code mCoolObject.CoolEvent+= new CoolObjectEventHandler(mCoolObject_CoolEvent); // then private void mCoolObject_CoolEvent(object sender, CoolObjectEventArgs args) { if (InvokeRequired) { CoolObjectEventHandler cb = new CoolObjectEventHandler( mCoolObject_CoolEvent); Invoke(cb, new object[] { sender, args }); return; } // do the dirty work of my method here }

    Read the article

  • Failing faster when URL content is not found, howto

    - by Jam
    I have a thread pool that loops over a bunch of pages and checks to see if some string is there or not. If String is found, or not found response is near instant, however if server is offline or application is not running getting a rejection seems to take seconds How can I change my code to fail faster? for (Thread thread : pool) { thread.start(); } for (Thread thread : pool) { try { thread.join(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } Here is my run method @Override public void run() { for (Box b : boxes) { try { connection = new URL(b.getUrl()).openConnection(); scanner = new Scanner(connection.getInputStream()); scanner.useDelimiter("\\Z"); content = scanner.next(); if (content.equals("YES")) { } else { System.out.println("\tFAILED ON " + b.getName() + " BAD APPLICATION STATE"); } } catch (Exception ex) { System.out.println("\tFAILED ON " + b.getName() + " BAD APPLICATION STATE"); } } }

    Read the article

  • Neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke

    - by ho
    I seem to remember seeing some neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke to avoid repeating too much code in every event handler but I can't remember what that was. So does anyone know a neat way of writing that code? Preferably for VB.Net 2005.

    Read the article

  • Can I safely bind to data on multi-threaded applications?

    - by Paul
    Hi everyone, I'm trying to solve a classic problem - I have a multi-threaded application which runs some processor-intensive calculations, with a GUI interface. Every time one of the threads has completed a task, I'd like to update a status on a table taskID | status I use DataGridView and BindingList in the following way: BindingList<Task> tasks; dataGridView.DataSource = tasks public class Task : INotifyPropertyChanged { ID{get;} Status{get;set;} } Can a background thread safely update a task's status? and changes will be seen in the correct order in the GUI? Second Question: When do I need to call to PropertyChanged? I tried running with and without the call, didn't seem to bother.. Third Question: I've seen on MSDN that dataGridView uses BindingSource as a mediator between DataGridView.DataSource and BindingList Is this really necessary?

    Read the article

  • Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable

    - by kaiwii ho
    Here is the whole code : import java.util.ArrayList; public class Test{ ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>arraylist=new ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>(){ @Override protected ArrayList<E> initialValue() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub //return super.initialValue(); ArrayList<E>arraylist=new ArrayList<E>(); for(int i=0;i<=20;i++) arraylist.add((E) new Integer(i)); return arraylist; } }; class MyRunnable implements Runnable{ private Test mytest; public MyRunnable(Test test){ mytest=test; // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } @Override public void run() { System.out.println("before"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); ArrayList<E>myarraylist=(ArrayList<E>) mytest.arraylist.get(); myarraylist.add((E) new Double(Math.random())); mytest.arraylist.set(myarraylist); System.out.println("after"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); } // TODO Auto-generated method stub } public static void main(String[] args){ Test test=new Test<Double>(); System.out.println(test.arraylist.toString()); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); System.out.println(arraylist.toString()); } } my questions are: 1\ why the new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); cause the error: Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable ? 2\ what is the static reference refer to right here? thx in advanced

    Read the article

  • ThreadExceptionEventHandler and invoking delegates

    - by QmunkE
    If I assign a ThreadExceptionEventHandler to Application.ThreadException, why when I invoke a delegate method using a control on the main application thread are any exceptions thrown by that delegate not triggering the event handler? i.e. static void Main() { ... Application.ThreadException += new System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventHandler(Application_ThreadException); Application.Run(new Form1()); } static void Application_ThreadException(object sender, System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventArgs e) { Console.Error.Write("A thread exception occurred!"); } ... private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { Thread syncThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThrowException)); syncThread.Start(); } private void ThrowException() { button1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { // Not handled by ThreadExceptionEventHandler? throw new Exception(); })); } The context on this is that I have a background thread started from a form which is throwing an unhandled exception which terminates the application. I know this thread is going to be unreliable since it is network connectivity reliant and so subject to being terminated at any point, but I'm just interested as to why this scenario doesn't play out as I expect?

    Read the article

  • Pointer inside a struct / thread

    - by bruno
    Hi! I have this warning "warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type " in this line: data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; - void print_message_function ( void *ptr ) { dt *data; data = (dt *) ptr; printf("Dentro da thread Numero0: %ld\n", data->L_norm_NewBlock); pthread_exit(0); } typedef struct data_thread { long L_norm_NewBlock; int Bsize_X; int Bsize_Y; int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; long L_norm_OrigBlock; } dt; void function() { int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; pthread_t thread1; dt *data1; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); //Fills structure data1 = (dt *) malloc(sizeof(dt)); data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; data1->L_norm_NewBlock=0; data1->Bsize_Y = Bsize_Y; data1->Bsize_X = Bsize_X; pthread_create(&thread1, &attr, (void *) &print_message_function, (void *) &data1); } I want to get rid of that warning, and the values i get inside the thread are wrong. For example data1-L_norm_NewBlock=0; in the thread guives me a differente value (not 0 like it should be).

    Read the article

  • C# What would happen to GC if I run process with priority = RealTime?

    - by Bobb
    I have a C# app which runs with priority RealTime. It was all fine until I made few hectic changes in past 2 days. Now it runs out of memory in few hours. I am trying to find whether it is a memory leak I created of this is because I consume lot more objects than before and GC simply cant collect them because it runs with same priority. My question is - what could happen to GC when it tries to collect objects in application with RealTime priority (there is also at least one thread running with Highest thread priority)? (P.S. by realtime priority I mean Process.GetCurrentProcess().PriorityClass = ProcessPriorityClass.RealTime)

    Read the article

  • What to use to wait on a indeterminate number of tasks?

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I am still fairly new to parallel computing so I am not too sure which tool to use for the job. I have a System.Threading.Tasks.Task that needs to wait for n number number of tasks to finish before starting. The tricky part is some of its dependencies may start after this task starts (You are guaranteed to never hit 0 dependent tasks until they are all done). Here is kind of what is happening Parent thread creates somewhere between 1 and (NUMBER_OF_CPU_CORES - 1) tasks. Parent thread creates task to be run when all of the worker tasks are finished. Parent thread creates a monitoring thread Monitoring thread may kill a worker task or spawn a new task depending on load. I can figure out everything up to step 4. How do I get the task from step 2 to wait to run until any new worker threads created in step 4 finish?

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with my @synchronized block?

    - by hyn
    I have 2 threads in my application, a game update thread and render/IO/main thread. My update thread updates the game state, and the render thread renders the scene based on the updated values of the game state models and a few other variables stored inside an object (gameEngine). The render thread gets executed while the game thread is still updating, which is a problem, so it appeared to me the solution is to use @synchronized like this: @synchronized(gameEngine) { [gameEngine update]; nextUpdate = now + GAME_UPDATE_INTERVAL; gameEngine.lastGameUpdateInterval = now - lastUpdate; gameEngine.lastGameUpdateTime = now; lastUpdate = now; } But the render thread still accesses the gameEngine object between -update and the last 3 lines of the block. Why is this?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server stored procedure in multi threaded environments

    - by Shamika
    Hi, I need to execute some Sql server stored procs in a thread safe manner. At the moment I'm using software locks (C# locks) to achieve this but wonder what kind of features provided by the Sql server itself to achieve thread safety. It seems to be there are some table and row locking features built in to Sql server. Also from a performance perspective what is best approach? Software locks? Or Sql Server built in locks? Thanks, Shamika

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to use a boolean flag to stop a thread from running in C#

    - by Lirik
    My main concern is with the boolean flag... is it safe to use it without any synchronization? I've read in several places that it's atomic. class MyTask { private ManualResetEvent startSignal; private CountDownLatch latch; private bool running; MyTask(CountDownLatch latch) { running = false; this.latch = latch; startSignal = new ManualResetEvent(false); } // A method which runs in a thread public void Run() { startSignal.WaitOne(); while(running) { startSignal.WaitOne(); //... some code } latch.Signal(); } public void Stop() { running = false; startSignal.Set(); } public void Start() { running = true; startSignal.Set(); } public void Pause() { startSignal.Reset(); } public void Resume() { startSignal.Set(); } } Is this a safe way to design a task? Any suggestions, improvements, comments? Note: I wrote my custom CountDownLatch class in case you're wondering where I'm getting it from.

    Read the article

  • What are common uses of condition variables in C++?

    - by jasonline
    I'm trying to learn about condition variables. I would like to know what are the common situations where condition variables are used. One example is in a blocking queue, where two threads access the queue - the producer thread pushes an item into the queue, while the consumer thread pops an item from the queue. If the queue is empty, the consumer thread is waiting until a signal is sent by the producer thread. What are other design situations where you need a condition variable to be used?

    Read the article

  • Fast inter-process (inter-threaded) communications IPC on large multi-cpu system.

    - by IPC
    What would be the fastest portable bi-directional communication mechanism for inter-process communication where threads from one application need to communicate to multiple threads in another application on the same computer, and the communicating threads can be on different physical CPUs). I assume that it would involve a shared memory and a circular buffer and shared synchronization mechanisms. But shared mutexes are very expensive (and there are limited number of them too) to synchronize when threads are running on different physical CPUs.

    Read the article

  • Help me find article on Multi-threading and Event Handling in Java

    - by JDR
    I once read an article on how to properly write event handlers for multi-threading in Java, but I can't for the life of me find it anymore. It described the pitfalls and potentials for deadlocks that can occur when firing events (not Swing events mind you, but general events like model update notifications). To clarify, the situation would be as such: // let's say this is code from an MVC model somewhere public void setSomeProperty(String myProperty){ if(!this.myProperty.equals(myProperty)){ this.myProperty = myProperty; fireMyPropertyChangedEvent(...); } } The article described how passing control to arbitrary external listener code was a potential cause for deadlock. I now find myself in a situation where I need to fire such events in a multithreaded environment and I would very much like to read the article again to see what it has to say before I continue. Does anyone know the article I'm referring to? I believe it came as a (fairly short) PDF. It started off with an initial naive implementation and incrementally pointed out flaws and improved upon it. It ended with a sort of final proper-way-to-fire-multithreaded-events. I've searched endlessly in my browse history and on google, but all I could find were endless amounts topics on Swing event dispatch threads. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • how to implement a message pump in Non-UI thread in .net?

    - by Benny
    how to implement a message pump in non-ui thread? what i want is that the message can be an object or a command, say an Action/Func, etc. do i have to use separate queue for different type of message? say one queue for object, one queue for Action/Function? Given that the type of messages vary, how to implement it?

    Read the article

  • Not Able to call The method Asynchronously in the Unit Test.

    - by user43838
    Hi everyone, I am trying to call a method that passes an object called parameters. public void LoadingDataLockFunctionalityTest() { DataCache_Accessor target = DataCacheTest.getNewDataCacheInstance(); target.itemsLoading.Add("WebFx.Caching.TestDataRetrieverFactorytestsync", true); DataParameters parameters = new DataParameters("WebFx.Core", "WebFx.Caching.TestDataRetrieverFactory", "testsync"); parameters.CachingStrategy = CachingStrategy.TimerDontWait; parameters.CacheDuration = 0; string data = (string)target.performGetForTimerDontWaitStrategy(parameters); TestSyncDataRetriever.SimulateLoadingForFiveSeconds = true; Thread t1 = new Thread(delegate() { string s = (string)target.performGetForTimerDontWaitStrategy(parameters); Console.WriteLine(s ?? String.Empty); }); t1.Start(); t1.Join(); Thread.Sleep(1000); ReaderWriterLockSlim rw = DataCache_Accessor.GetLoadingLock(parameters); Assert.IsTrue(rw.IsWriteLockHeld); Assert.IsNotNull(data); } My test is failing all the time and i am not able step through the method.. Can someone please put me in the right direction Thanks

    Read the article

  • Thread safety in C# arrays

    - by Betamoo
    Does having 2 different threads : one reading from a C# array (e.g from first location), and another one writing to the same C# array but to a different location(e.g to the last location) is thread safe or not? (And I mean here without locking reading nor writing)

    Read the article

  • Why isn't it possible to update an ObservableCollection from a different thread?

    - by MainMa
    In a multi-threaded WPF application, it is not possible to update an ObservableCollection from a thread other than WPF window thread. I know there are workarounds, so my question is not how to avoid the "This type of CollectionView does not support changes to its SourceCollection from a thread different from the Dispatcher thread" exception. My question is, why there is such an exception? Why wasn't it possible to allow collection updates from any thread? Personally, I don't see any reason to block UI update when ObservableCollection is changed from other threads. If two threads (including parallel ones) are accessing the same object, one listening for changes of object properties through events, the other one doing changes, it will always work, at least if locks are used properly. So, what are the reasons?

    Read the article

  • How can one use multi threading in php applications

    - by Steve Obbayi
    Is there a realistic way of implementing a multi-threaded model in php whether truly or just simulating it. Some time back it was suggested that you can force the operating system to load another instance of the php executable and handle other simultaneous processes. The problem with this is that when the php code finished executing the php instance remains in memory because there is no way to kill it from within php. so if you are simulating several threads you can imagine whats going to happen. So am still looking for a way multi-threading can be done or simulated effectively from within php. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Java Thread execution on same data

    - by AR89
    first of all here is the code, you can just copy an paste import java.util.ArrayList; public class RepetionCounter implements Runnable{ private int x; private int y; private int[][] matrix; private int xCounter; private int yCounter; private ArrayList<Thread> threadArray; private int rowIndex; private boolean[] countCompleted; public RepetionCounter(int x, int y, int [][]matrix) { this.x = x; this.y = y; this.matrix = matrix; this.threadArray = new ArrayList<Thread>(matrix.length); this.rowIndex = 0; for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++){ threadArray.add(new Thread(this)); } countCompleted = new boolean[matrix.length]; } public void start(){ for (int i = 0; i < threadArray.size(); i++){ threadArray.get(i).start(); this.rowIndex++; } } public void count(int rowIndex) { for(int i = 0; i < matrix[rowIndex].length; i++){ if (matrix[rowIndex][i] == x){ this.xCounter++; } else if (matrix[rowIndex][i] == y){ this.yCounter++; } } } @Override public void run() { count(this.rowIndex); countCompleted[this.rowIndex] = true; } public int getxCounter() { return xCounter; } public void setxCounter(int xCounter) { this.xCounter = xCounter; } public int getyCounter() { return yCounter; } public void setyCounter(int yCounter) { this.yCounter = yCounter; } public boolean[] getCountCompleted() { return countCompleted; } public void setCountCompleted(boolean[] countCompleted) { this.countCompleted = countCompleted; } public static void main(String args[]){ int[][] matrix = {{0,2,1}, {2,3,4}, {3,2,0}}; RepetionCounter rc = new RepetionCounter(0, 2, matrix); rc.start(); boolean ready = false; while(!ready){ for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++){ if (rc.getCountCompleted()[i]){ ready = true; } else { ready = false; } } } if (rc.getxCounter() > rc.getyCounter()){ System.out.println("Thre are more x than y"); } else {System.out.println("There are:"+rc.getxCounter()+" x and:"+rc.getyCounter()+" y"); } } } What I want this code to do: I give to the object a matrix and tow numbers, and I want to know how much times these two numbers occurs in the matrix. I create as many thread as the number of rows of the matrix (that' why there is that ArrayList), so in this object I have k threads (supposing k is the number of rows), each of them count the occurrences of the two numbers. The problem is: if I run it for the first time everything work, but if I try to execute it another time I get and IndexOutOfBoundException, or a bad count of the occurrences, the odd thing is that if I get the error, and modify the code, after that it will works again just for once. Can you explain to me why is this happening?

    Read the article

  • Multi-threading concept and lock in c#

    - by Neeraj
    I read about lock, though not understood nothing at all. My question is why do we use a un-used object and lock that and how this makes something thread-safe or how this helps in multi-threading ? Isn't there other way to make thread-safe code. public class test { private object Lock { get; set; } ... lock (this.Lock) { ... } ... } Sorry is my question is very stupid, but i don't understand, although i've used it many times.

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe use of a singleton's members

    - by Anthony Mastrean
    I have a C# singleton class that multiple classes use. Is access through Instance to the Toggle() method thread-safe? If yes, by what assumptions, rules, etc. If no, why and how can I fix it? public class MyClass { private static readonly MyClass instance = new MyClass(); public static MyClass Instance { get { return instance; } } private int value = 0; public int Toggle() { if(value == 0) { value = 1; } else if(value == 1) { value = 0; } return value; } }

    Read the article

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • Handling a Long Running jsp request on the server using Ajax and threads

    - by John Blue
    I am trying to implement a solution for a long running process on the server where it is taking about 10 min to process a pdf generation request. The browser bored/timesout at the 5 mins. I was thinking to deal with this using a Ajax and threads. I am using regular javascript for ajax. But I am stuck with it. I have reached till the point where it sends the request to the servlet and the servlet starts the thread.Please see the below code public class HelloServlet extends javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet implements javax.servlet.Servlet { protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { } protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { System.out.println("POST request!!"); LongProcess longProcess = new LongProcess(); longProcess.setDaemon(true); longProcess.start(); request.getSession().setAttribute("longProcess", longProcess); request.getRequestDispatcher("index.jsp").forward(request, response); } } class LongProcess extends Thread { public void run() { System.out.println("Thread Started!!"); while (progress < 10) { try { sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException ignore) {} progress++; } } } Here is my AJax call <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title>My Title</title> <script language="JavaScript" > function getXMLObject() //XML OBJECT { var xmlHttp = false; xmlHttp = new XMLHttpRequest(); //For Mozilla, Opera Browsers return xmlHttp; // Mandatory Statement returning the ajax object created } var xmlhttp = new getXMLObject(); //xmlhttp holds the ajax object function ajaxFunction() { xmlhttp.open("GET","HelloServlet" ,true); xmlhttp.onreadystatechange = handleServerResponse; xmlhttp.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'); xmlhttp.send(null); } function handleServerResponse() { if (xmlhttp.readyState == 4) { if(xmlhttp.status == 200) { document.forms[0].myDiv.value = xmlhttp.responseText; setTimeout(ajaxFunction(), 2000); } else { alert("Error during AJAX call. Please try again"); } } } function openPDF() { document.forms[0].method = "POST"; document.forms[0].action = "HelloServlet"; document.forms[0].submit(); } function stopAjax(){ clearInterval(intervalID); } </script> </head> <body><form name="myForm"> <table><tr><td> <INPUT TYPE="BUTTON" NAME="Download" VALUE="Download Queue ( PDF )" onclick="openPDF();"> </td></tr> <tr><td> Current status: <div id="myDiv"></div>% </td></tr></table> </form></body></html> But I dont know how to proceed further like how will the thread communicate the browser that the process has complete and how should the ajax call me made and check the status of the request. Please let me know if I am missing some pieces. Any suggestion if helpful.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >