Search Results

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

Page 51/66 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

  • WPF: issue updating UI from background thread

    - by Ted Shaffer
    My code launches a background thread. The background thread makes changes and wants the UI in the main thread to update. The code that launches the thread then waits looks something like: Thread fThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(PerformSync)); fThread.IsBackground = true; fThread.Start(); fThread.Join(); MessageBox.Show("Synchronization complete"); When the background wants to update the UI, it sets a StatusMessage and calls the code below: static StatusMessage _statusMessage; public delegate void AddStatusDelegate(); private void AddStatus() { AddStatusDelegate methodForUIThread = delegate { _statusMessageList.Add(_statusMessage); }; this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(methodForUIThread, System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherPriority.Send); } _statusMessageList is an ObservableCollection that is the source for a ListBox. The AddStatus method is called but the code on the main thread never executes - that is, _statusMessage is not added to _statusMessageList while the thread is executing. However, once it is complete (fThread.Join() returns), all the stacked up calls on the main thread are executed. But, if I display a message box between the calls to fThread.Start() and fThread.Join(), then the status messages are updated properly. What do I need to change so that the code in the main thread executes (UI updates) while waiting for the thread to terminate? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Form.Show() is not showing it's child controls

    - by Refracted Paladin
    I have a form, frmPleaseWait, that has a MarqueeProgressBar and a Label that I want to use when the UI is loading the data in a poorly structured app we have. The problem is that frmPleaseWait.Show() shows the form but not the controls in it. It is just a white rectangle. Now frmPleaseWait.ShowDialog() shows the child controls but doesn't let the UI load it's data. What am I missing? Below is a code snippet from where I am trying this. PleaseWait = new frmPleaseWait(); PleaseWait.Show(this); // Set all available HUD values in HUD Object HUD.LastName = GetCurrentRowVal("LastName").Trim(); HUD.FirstName = GetCurrentRowVal("FirstName").Trim(); HUD.PersonId = Convert.ToInt32(GetCurrentRowVal("PersonID").Trim()); HUD.SSn = GetCurrentRowVal("SSN").Trim(); HUD.MiddleName = GetCurrentRowVal("MiddleName").Trim(); HUD.MasterID = ConnectBLL.BLL.DriInterface.CheckForDriId(HUD.PersonId).ToString(); // This loads numerous UserControls with data shellForm.FormPaint(HUD.PersonId); PleaseWait.Close();

    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 this use of PreparedStatements in a Thread in JAVA correct?

    - by Gormcito
    I'm still an undergrad just working part time and so I'm always trying to be aware of better ways to do things. Recently I had to write a program for work where the main thread of the program would spawn "task" threads (for each db "task" record) which would perform some operations and then update the record to say that it has finished. Therefore I needed a database connection object and PreparedStatement objects in or available to the ThreadedTask objects. This is roughly what I ended up writing, is creating a PreparedStatement object per thread a waste? I thought static PreparedStatments could create race conditions... Thread A stmt.setInt(); Thread B stmt.setInt(); Thread A stmt.execute(); Thread B stmt.execute(); A´s version never gets execed.. Is this thread safe? Is creating and destroying PreparedStatement objects that are always the same not a huge waste? public class ThreadedTask implements runnable { private final PreparedStatement taskCompleteStmt; public ThreadedTask() { //... taskCompleteStmt = Main.db.prepareStatement(...); } public run() { //... taskCompleteStmt.executeUpdate(); } } public class Main { public static final db = DriverManager.getConnection(...); }

    Read the article

  • Semaphores values

    - by Joel
    Hey, I have a question regarding using Semaphores HANDLE WINAPI CreateSemaphore(...); Is there anyway I can get the current value of the semaphore? Thanks, Joel

    Read the article

  • Best way to reuse a Runnable

    - by Gandalf
    I have a class that implements Runnable and am currently using an Executor as my thread pool to run tasks (indexing documents into Lucene). executor.execute(new LuceneDocIndexer(doc, writer)); My issue is that my Runnable class creates many Lucene Field objects and I would rather reuse them then create new ones every call. What's the best way to reuse these objects (Field objects are not thread safe so I cannot simple make them static) - should I create my own ThreadFactory? I notice that after a while the program starts to degrade drastically and the only thing I can think of is it's GC overhead. I am currently trying to profile the project to be sure this is even an issue - but for now lets just assume it is.

    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

  • wxpython - Running threads sequentially without blocking GUI

    - by ryantmer
    I've got a GUI script with all my wxPython code in it, and a separate testSequences module that has a bunch of tasks that I run based on input from the GUI. The tasks take a long time to complete (from 20 seconds to 3 minutes), so I want to thread them, otherwise the GUI locks up while they're running. I also need them to run one after another, since they all use the same hardware. (My rationale behind threading is simply to prevent the GUI from locking up.) I'd like to have a "Running" message (with varying number of periods after it, i.e. "Running", "Running.", "Running..", etc.) so the user knows that progress is occurring, even though it isn't visible. I'd like this script to run the test sequences in separate threads, but sequentially, so that the second thread won't be created and run until the first is complete. Since this is kind of the opposite of the purpose of threads, I can't really find any information on how to do this... Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! gui.py import testSequences from threading import Thread #wxPython code for setting everything up here... for j in range(5): testThread = Thread(target=testSequences.test1) testThread.start() while testThread.isAlive(): #wait until the previous thread is complete time.sleep(0.5) i = (i+1) % 4 self.status.SetStatusText("Running"+'.'*i) testSequences.py import time def test1(): for i in range(10): print i time.sleep(1) (Obviously this isn't the actual test code, but the idea is the same.)

    Read the article

  • Crossthread exception and invokerequired solution doesn't change my control value

    - by Pilouk
    EDIT Solution : Here i'm setting my byref value in each object then i'm running a backgroundworker Private Sub TelechargeFichier() Dim DocManquant As Boolean = False Dim docName As String = "" Dim lg As String = "" Dim telechargementFini As Boolean = False lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1478") prgBar.Maximum = m_listeFichiers.Count For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeFichiers.Count - 1 m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefLabel(lblMessage) m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefPrgbar(prgBar) m_listeThreads.Add(New Thread(AddressOf m_listeFichiers(i).DownloadMe)) Next m_bgWorker = New BackgroundWorker m_bgWorker.WorkerReportsProgress = True AddHandler m_bgWorker.DoWork, AddressOf DownloadFiles m_bgWorker.RunWorkerAsync() ''Completed 'lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1383") 'Me.DialogResult = System.Windows.Forms.DialogResult.OK End Sub Here is my downloadFiles function : Note that each start will do the downloadMe function see below too Private Sub DownloadFiles(sender As Object, e As DoWorkEventArgs) For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Start() Next For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Join() Next End Sub I have multiple thread that each will download a ftp file. I would like that each file that have been completed will set a value to a progress bar and a label from my UI thread. For some reason invokerequired never change to false. Here is my little function that start all the thread Private Sub TelechargeFichier() Dim DocManquant As Boolean = False Dim docName As String = "" Dim lg As String = "" Dim telechargementFini As Boolean = False lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1478") prgBar.Maximum = m_listeFichiers.Count For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeFichiers.Count - 1 m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefLabel(lblMessage) m_listeFichiers(i).Set_ByRefPrgbar(prgBar) m_listeThreads.Add(New Thread(AddressOf m_listeFichiers(i).DownloadMe)) Next For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Start() Next For i As Integer = 0 To m_listeThreads.Count - 1 m_listeThreads(i).Join() Next 'Completed lblMessage.Text = EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1383") Me.DialogResult = System.Windows.Forms.DialogResult.OK End Sub Here my property that hold the Byref control from the UI thread. This is in my object which content the addressof function that will download the file (DownloadMe) Public Sub Set_ByRefPrgbar(ByRef prgbar As ProgressBar) m_prgBar = prgbar End Sub Public Sub Set_ByRefLabel(ByRef lbl As EasyDeal.Controls.EasyDealLabel3D) m_lblMessage = lbl End Sub Here is the download function : Public Sub DownloadMe() Dim ftpReq As FtpWebRequest Dim ftpResp As FtpWebResponse = Nothing Dim streamInput As Stream Dim fileStreamOutput As FileStream Try ftpReq = CType(WebRequest.Create(EasyDeal.Controls.Common.FTP_CONNECTION & m_downloadFtpPath & m_filename), FtpWebRequest) ftpReq.Credentials = New NetworkCredential(FTP_USER, FTP_PASS) ftpReq.Method = WebRequestMethods.Ftp.DownloadFile ftpResp = ftpReq.GetResponse streamInput = ftpResp.GetResponseStream() fileStreamOutput = New FileStream(m_outputPath, FileMode.Create, FileAccess.ReadWrite) ReadWriteStream(streamInput, fileStreamOutput) Catch ex As Exception 'Au pire la fichier sera pas downloader Finally If ftpResp IsNot Nothing Then ftpResp.Close() End If Dim nomFichier As String = m_displaynameEN If EasyDealChangeLanguage.GetCurrentLanguageTypes = EasyDealChangeLanguage.EnumLanguageType.Francais Then nomFichier = m_displaynameFR End If If m_lblMessage IsNot Nothing Then EasyDealCommon.TH_SetControlText(m_lblMessage, String.Format(EasyDealChangeLanguage.Instance.GetStringFromResourceName("1479"), nomFichier)) End If If m_prgBar IsNot Nothing Then EasyDealCommon.TH_SetPrgValue(m_prgBar, 1) End If End Try End Sub Here is the crossthread invoke solution function : Public Sub TH_SetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control, ByVal text As String) If ctl.InvokeRequired Then ctl.BeginInvoke(New Action(Of Control, String)(AddressOf TH_SetControlText), ctl, text) Else ctl.Text = text End If End Sub Public Sub TH_SetPrgValue(ByVal prg As ProgressBar, ByVal value As Integer) If prg.InvokeRequired Then prg.BeginInvoke(New Action(Of ProgressBar, Integer)(AddressOf TH_SetPrgValue), prg, value) Else prg.Value += value End If End Sub The problem is the invokerequired never get to false it actually goes in to beginInvoke but never end in the Else section to set the value.

    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

  • How to keep a .NET console app running?

    - by intoorbit
    Consider a Console application that starts up some services in a separate thread. All it needs to do is wait for the user to press Ctrl+C to shut it down. Which of the following is the better way to do this? static ManualResetEvent _quitEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); static void Main() { Console.CancelKeyPress += delegate { _quitEvent.Set(); }; // kick off asynchronous stuff _quitEvent.WaitOne(); // cleanup/shutdown and quit } Or this, using Thread.Sleep(1): static bool _quitFlag = false; static void Main() { Console.CancelKeyPress += delegate { _quitFlag = true; }; // kick off asynchronous stuff while (!_quitFlag) { Thread.Sleep(1); } // cleanup/shutdown and quit }

    Read the article

  • C# Spawn Multiple Threads for work then wait until all finished

    - by pharoc
    just want some advice on "best practice" regarding multi-threading tasks. as an example, we have a C# application that upon startup reads data from various "type" table in our database and stores the information in a collection which we pass around the application. this prevents us from hitting the database each time this information is required. at the moment the application is reading data from 10 tables synchronously. i would really like to have the application read from each table in a different thread all running in parallel. the application would wait for all the threads to complete before continuing with the startup of the application. i have looked into BackGroundWorker but just want some advice on accomplishing the above. Does the method sound logical in order to speed up the startup time of our application How can we best handle all the threads keeping in mind that each thread's work is independent of one another, we just need to wait for all the threads to complete before continuing. i look forward to some answers

    Read the article

  • "pseudo-atomic" operations in C++

    - by dan
    So I'm aware that nothing is atomic in C++. But I'm trying to figure out if there are any "pseudo-atomic" assumptions I can make. The reason is that I want to avoid using mutexes in some simple situations where I only need very weak guarantees. 1) Suppose I have globally defined volatile bool b, which initially I set true. Then I launch a thread which executes a loop while(b) doSomething(); Meanwhile, in another thread, I execute b=true. Can I assume that the first thread will continue to execute? In other words, if b starts out as true, and the first thread checks the value of b at the same time as the second thread assigns b=true, can I assume that the first thread will read the value of b as true? Or is it possible that at some intermediate point of the assignment b=true, the value of b might be read as false? 2) Now suppose that b is initially false. Then the first thread executes bool b1=b; bool b2=b; if(b1 && !b2) bad(); while the second thread executes b=true. Can I assume that bad() never gets called? 3) What about an int or other builtin types: suppose I have volatile int i, which is initially (say) 7, and then I assign i=7. Can I assume that, at any time during this operation, from any thread, the value of i will be equal to 7? 4) I have volatile int i=7, and then I execute i++ from some thread, and all other threads only read the value of i. Can I assume that i never has any value, in any thread, except for either 7 or 8? 5) I have volatile int i, from one thread I execute i=7, and from another I execute i=8. Afterwards, is i guaranteed to be either 7 or 8 (or whatever two values I have chosen to assign)?

    Read the article

  • Threadpool with pasistant worker instances

    - by Matt Smokey-waters Holmes
    So basically what im trying to do is queue up tasks in a thread pool to be executed as soon as a worker becomes free, i have found various examples of this but in all cases the examples have been setup to use a new Worker instance for each job, i want persistent workers. Im trying to make a ftp backup tool, i have it working but because of the limitations of a single connection it is slow. What i ideally want to do is have a single connection for scanning directories and building up a file list then four workers to download said files. Here is an example of my worker /** * FTP Worker */ public class Worker implements Runnable { protected FTPClient _ftp; // Connection details protected String _host = ""; protected String _user = ""; protected String _pass = ""; // worker status protected boolean _working = false; public Worker(String host, String user, String pass) { this._host = host; this._user = user; this._pass = pass; } // Check if the worker is in use public boolean inUse() { return this._working; } @Override public void run() { this._ftp = new FTPClient(); this._connect(); } // Download a file from the ftp server public boolean download(String base, String path, String file) { this._working = true; boolean outcome = true; //create directory if not exists File pathDir = new File(base + path); if (!pathDir.exists()) { pathDir.mkdirs(); } //download file try { OutputStream output = new FileOutputStream(base + path + file); this._ftp.retrieveFile(file, output); output.close(); } catch (Exception e) { outcome = false; } finally { this._working = false; return outcome; } } // Connect to the server protected boolean _connect() { try { this._ftp.connect(this._host); this._ftp.login(this._user, this._pass); } catch (Exception e) { return false; } return this._ftp.isConnected(); } // Disconnect from the server protected void _disconnect() { try { this._ftp.disconnect(); } catch (Exception e) { /* do nothing */ } } } and basically i want to be able to call Worker.download(...) for each task in a queue whenever a worker becomes available without having to create a new connection to the ftp server for each download Any help would be appreciated as iv'e never used threads before and I'm going round in circles at the moment

    Read the article

  • How to end a thread in perl

    - by user1672190
    I am new to perl and i have a question about perl thread. I am trying to create a new thread to check if the running function is timed out, and my way of doing it is as below. Logic is 1.create a new thread 2.run the main function and see if it is timed out, if ture, kill it Sample code: $exit_tread = false; # a flag to make sure timeout thread will run my $thr_timeout = threads->new( \&timeout ); execute main function here; $exit_thread = true # set the flag to true to force thread ends $thr_timeout->join(); #wait for the timeout thread ends Code of timeout function sub timeout { $timeout = false; my $start_time = time(); while (!$exit_thread) { sleep(1); last if (main function is executed); if (time() - $start_time >= configured time ) { logmsg "process is killed as request timed out"; _kill_remote_process(); $timeout = true; last; } } } now the code is running as i expected, but i am just not very clear if the code $exit_thread = true works because there is a "last" at the end of while loop. Can anybody give me a answer? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does thread pool size keep growing for scheduledthreadpoolexecutor?

    - by Sourajit Basak
    Imagine a situation where tasks are being added to scheduledthreadpoolexecutor. Each of these tasks will keep on running at different periodic intervals. Although all such tasks will not be running at the same time because each is set at different intervals, there may be a situation where a high number of threads are competing for execution. Is there any restriction on total number of threads ? It seems there is a restriction on the total number of idle threads. And does this concept of idle thread imply that long running tasks (thread) may be destroyed and recreated when needed ?

    Read the article

  • Download multiple files in background in Android

    - by Addev
    Basically I'm trying to make a little app for watching offline content. So there's a moment where the user selects to download the contents (and the app should download about 300 small files and images). I'd like to show the user how does the process go if he enters the proper activity. Showing a list of all the files, telling what has been already downloaded, in progress or waiting for download. My problem is that I really don't know what approach to take for achieve this. Since the download should last until finished I imagine the solution is an Service, but whats best? an IntentService, a Bound Service or an Standard Service calling a startService() for each download? And how can I keep my objects updated for displaying them later? should I use a database or objects in memory? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Solve a maze using multicores?

    - by acidzombie24
    This question is messy, i dont need a working solution, i need some psuedo code. How would i solve this maze? This is a homework question. I have to get from point green to red. At every fork i need to 'spawn a thread' and go that direction. I need to figure out how to get to red but i am unsure how to avoid paths i already have taken (finishing with any path is ok, i am just not allowed to go in circles). Heres an example of my problem, i start by moving down and i see a fork so one goes right and one goes down (or this thread can take it, it doesnt matter). Now lets ignore the rest of the forks and say the one going right hits the wall, goes down, hits the wall and goes left, then goes up. The other thread goes down, hits the wall then goes all the way right. The bottom path has been taken twice, by starting at different sides. How do i mark this path has been taken? Do i need a lock? Is this the only way? Is there a lockless solution? Implementation wise i was thinking i could have the maze something like this. I dont like the solution because there is a LOT of locking (assuming i lock before each read and write of the haveTraverse member). I dont need to use the MazeSegment class below, i just wrote it up as an example. I am allowed to construct the maze however i want. I was thinking maybe the solution requires no connecting paths and thats hassling me. Maybe i could split the map up instead of using the format below (which is easy to read and understand). But if i knew how to split it up i would know how to walk it thus the problem. How do i walk this maze efficiently? The only hint i receive was dont try to conserve memory by reusing it, make copies. However that was related to a problem with ordering a list and i dont think the hint was a hint for this. class MazeSegment { enum Direction { up, down, left, right} List<Pair<Direction, MazeSegment*>> ConnectingPaths; int line_length; bool haveTraverse; } MazeSegment root; class MazeSegment { enum Direction { up, down, left, right} List<Pair<Direction, MazeSegment*>> ConnectingPaths; bool haveTraverse; } void WalkPath(MazeSegment segment) { if(segment.haveTraverse) return; segment.haveTraverse = true; foreach(var v in segment) { if(v.haveTraverse == false) spawn_thread(v); } } WalkPath(root);

    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

  • Faking a Single Address Space

    - by dsimcha
    I have a large scientific computing task that parallelizes very well with SMP, but at too fine grained a level to be easily parallelized via explicit message passing. I'd like to parallelize it across address spaces and physical machines. Is it feasible to create a scheduler that would parallelize already multithreaded code across multiple physical computers under the following conditions: The code is already multithreaded and can scale pretty well on SMP configurations. The fact that not all of the threads are running in the same address space or on the same physical machine must be transparent to the program, even if this comes at a significant performance penalty in some use cases. You may assume that all of the physical machines involved are running operating systems and CPU architectures that are binary compatible. Things like locks and atomic operations may be slow (having network latency to deal with and all) but must "just work".

    Read the article

  • Registering an event from different thread

    - by ET
    Hi, I have a question regarding events in c#. Lets say I have an object obj1 of a class that exposes an event, and this object is running on thread t1. Now on different thread t2, there is another object called obj2 that is registered for the event of obj1. Is it promised that obj2 will get the event when it will be raised? thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >