Search Results

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

Page 57/66 | < Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >

  • .NET Threading : How to wait for other thread to finish some task

    - by Alex Ilyin
    Assume I have method void SomeMethod(Action callback) This method does some work in background thread and then invokes callback. The question is - how to block current thread until callback is called ? There is an example bool finished = false; SomeMethod(delegate{ finished = true; }); while(!finished) Thread.Sleep(); But I'm sure there should be better way

    Read the article

  • multitreading scheduling related java

    - by vichi
    class A implements Runnable{ B b=new B(); public void run(){ while(true){ System.out.println("H1"+Thread.currentThread().getName()); } } } public class Test { public static void main(String[] str){ A a1 =new A(); // A a2 =new A(); // Thread t1 =new Thread(a1, "Vichi"); Thread t2 =new Thread(a1,"Vishu"); t1.start(); t2.start(); } } what will be the ans: 1) only one of them will get the chance to execute 2) both will get chance in arbitrary manner please suggest possible ans with explations

    Read the article

  • Corrupt output with an HttpModule

    - by clementi
    I have an HttpModule that looks at the query string for a parameter called "cmd" and executes one of a small set of predefined commands that display server stats in XML. For example, http://server01?cmd=globalstats. Now, on rare occasions, like once out of hundreds of times, I will get corrupt output like this: <!-- the stats start displaying fine... --> <stats> <ServerName>SERVER01</ServerName> <StackName>Search</StackName> <TotalRequests>945</TotalRequests> <!-- ...until something has gone awry and now we're getting the markup of the home page! --> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> ...the rest of the home page markup... (Remove the comments in the example above.) I'm not all that familiar with HttpModules and the IIS pipeline, but could this be a threading problem? Or, what else?

    Read the article

  • Is it thread safe to read a form controls value (but not change it) without using Invoke/BeginInvoke from another thread

    - by goku_da_master
    I know you can read a gui control from a worker thread without using Invoke/BeginInvoke because my app is doing it now. The cross thread exception error is not being thrown and my System.Timers.Timer thread is able to read gui control values just fine (unlike this guy: can a worker thread read a control in the GUI?) Question 1: Given the cardinal rule of threads, should I be using Invoke/BeginInvoke to read form control values? And does this make it more thread-safe? The background to this question stems from a problem my app is having. It seems to randomly corrupt form controls another thread is referencing. (see question 2) Question 2: I have a second thread that needs to update form control values so I Invoke/BeginInvoke to update those values. Well this same thread needs a reference to those controls so it can update them. It holds a list of these controls (say DataGridViewRow objects). Sometimes (not always), the DataGridViewRow reference gets "corrupt". What I mean by corrupt, is the reference is still valid, but some of the DataGridViewRow properties are null (ex: row.Cells). Is this caused by question 1 or can you give me any tips on why this might be happening? Here's some code (the last line has the problem): public partial class MyForm : Form { void Timer_Elapsed(object sender) { // we're on a new thread (this function gets called every few seconds) UpdateUiHelper updateUiHelper = new UpdateUiHelper(this); foreach (DataGridViewRow row in dataGridView1.Rows) { object[] values = GetValuesFromDb(); updateUiHelper.UpdateRowValues(row, values[0]); } // .. do other work here updateUiHelper.UpdateUi(); } } public class UpdateUiHelper { private readonly Form _form; private Dictionary<DataGridViewRow, object> _rows; private delegate void RowDelegate(DataGridViewRow row); private readonly object _lockObject = new object(); public UpdateUiHelper(Form form) { _form = form; _rows = new Dictionary<DataGridViewRow, object>(); } public void UpdateRowValues(DataGridViewRow row, object value) { if (_rows.ContainsKey(row)) _rows[row] = value; else { lock (_lockObject) { _rows.Add(row, value); } } } public void UpdateUi() { foreach (DataGridViewRow row in _rows.Keys) { SetRowValueThreadSafe(row); } } private void SetRowValueThreadSafe(DataGridViewRow row) { if (_form.InvokeRequired) { _form.Invoke(new RowDelegate(SetRowValueThreadSafe), new object[] { row }); return; } // now we're on the UI thread object newValue = _rows[row]; row.Cells[0].Value = newValue; // randomly errors here with NullReferenceException, but row is never null! }

    Read the article

  • When should ThreadLocal be used instead of Thread.SetData/Thread.GetData?

    - by Jon Ediger
    Prior to .net 4.0, I implemented a solution using named data slots in System.Threading.Thread. Now, in .net 4.0, there is the idea of ThreadLocal. How does ThreadLocal usage compare to named data slots? Does the ThreadLocal value get inherited by children threads? Is the idea that ThreadLocal is a simplified version of using named data slots? An example of some stuff using named data slots follows. Could this be simplified through use of ThreadLocal, and would it retain the same properties as the named data slots? public static void SetSliceName(string slice) { System.Threading.Thread.SetData(System.Threading.Thread.GetNamedDataSlot(SliceVariable), slice); } public static string GetSliceName(bool errorIfNotFound) { var slice = System.Threading.Thread.GetData(System.Threading.Thread.GetNamedDataSlot(SliceVariable)) as string; if (errorIfNotFound && string.IsNullOrEmpty(slice)) {throw new ConfigurationErrorsException("Server slice name not configured.");} return slice; }

    Read the article

  • Easy Threading in WPF

    - by Sandeep Bansal
    Hi everyone, I've been reading a lot about threading in C#, WPF and Silverlight but can't get it to work. My main problem is I have the _load (_Initialized) action and it has a lot of object creation and along with that I have timers working doing different things, this causes the startup time of the program to be very slow and obviously causes the UI to hang and it isn't a good thing for deploying to a lot of users. My timers change values of labels and textfields but having them do that on another thread is an obvious no go. So can someone give me some examples on how to achieve what I need to do? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to reliably detect the total number of CPU cores?

    - by John Sheares
    I need a reliable way to detect how many CPU cores are on a computer. I am creating a numerically intense simulation C# application and want to create the maximum number of running threads as cores. I have tried many of the methods suggested around the internet like Environment.ProcessorCount, using WMI, this code: http://blogs.adamsoftware.net/Engine/DeterminingthenumberofphysicalCPUsonWindows.aspx. None of them seem to think a AMD X2 has two cores. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • "Multi-threading" w/ NSTimers in an iPhone app

    - by MrDatabase
    Say I have two NSTimers in my iPhone app: timer1 and timer2. timer1 calls function1 30 times per second and timer2 calls function2 30 times per second. Assume these two functions are reading and updating the same integer variables. Are there any "multi-threading" issues here? If not how does iPhone OS handle the execution of the two functions (in general)?

    Read the article

  • C# Anyway to detect if an object is locked.

    - by scope-creep
    Hi, Is their anyway to determine if a object is locked in c#. I have the unenviable position, through design where i'm reading from a queue inside a class, and I need to dump the contents into a collection in the class. But that collection is also read/write from an interface outside the class. So obviously their may be a case when the collection is being written to, as the same time i want to write to it. I could program round it, say using delegate but it would be ugly. Bob.

    Read the article

  • Java: "implements Runnable" vs. "extends Thread"

    - by user65374
    From what time I've spent with threads in Java, I've found these two ways to write threads. public class ThreadA implements Runnable { public void run() { //Code } } //with a "new Thread(threadA).start()" call public class ThreadB extends Thread { public ThreadB() { super("ThreadB"); } public void run() { //Code } } //with a "threadB.start()" call Is there any significant difference in these two blocks of code?

    Read the article

  • Java Socket - how to catch Exception of BufferedReader.readline()

    - by Hasan Tahsin
    I have a Thread (let's say T1) which reads data from socket: public void run() { while (running) { try { BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader( new InputStreamReader(socket.getInputStream()) ); String input = reader.readLine(); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } Another Thread (lets say T2) try to finish the program in one of its method. Therefore T2 does the following: T1.running = false; socket.close(); Here is this scenario for which i couldn't find a solution: T1 is active and waiting for some input to read i.e. blocking. context switching T2 is active and sets running to false, closes the socket context switching because T1 was blocking and T2 closed the socket, T1 throws an Exception. What i want is to catch this SocketException. i can't put a try/catch(SocketException) in T1.run(). So how can i catch it in T1's running-method? If it's not possible to catch it in T1's running, then how can i catch it elsewhere? PS: "Another question about the Thread Debugging" Normally when i debug the code step by step, i lose the 'active running line' on a context switch. Let's say i'm in line 20 of T1, context switch happens, let's assume the program continues from the 30.line of T2, but the debugger does not go/show to the 30.line of T2, instead the 'active running line' vanishes. So i lose the control over the code. I use Eclipse for Java and Visual Studio for C#. So what is the best way to track the code while debugging on a context switch ?

    Read the article

  • Updating table from async task android

    - by CantChooseUsernames
    I'm following this tutorial: http://huuah.com/android-progress-bar-and-thread-updating/ to learn how to make progress bars. I'm trying to show the progress bar on top of my activity and have it update the activity's table view in the background. So I created an async task for the dialog that takes a callback: package com.lib.bookworm; import android.app.ProgressDialog; import android.content.Context; import android.os.AsyncTask; public class UIThreadProgress extends AsyncTask<Void, Void, Void> { private UIThreadCallback callback = null; private ProgressDialog dialog = null; private int maxValue = 100, incAmount = 1; private Context context = null; public UIThreadProgress(Context context, UIThreadCallback callback) { this.context = context; this.callback = callback; } @Override protected Void doInBackground(Void... args) { while(this.callback.condition()) { this.callback.run(); this.publishProgress(); } return null; } @Override protected void onProgressUpdate(Void... values) { super.onProgressUpdate(values); dialog.incrementProgressBy(incAmount); }; @Override protected void onPreExecute() { super.onPreExecute(); dialog = new ProgressDialog(context); dialog.setCancelable(true); dialog.setMessage("Loading..."); dialog.setProgress(0); dialog.setProgressStyle(ProgressDialog.STYLE_HORIZONTAL); dialog.setMax(maxValue); dialog.show(); } @Override protected void onPostExecute(Void result) { super.onPostExecute(result); if (this.dialog.isShowing()) { this.dialog.dismiss(); } this.callback.onThreadFinish(); } } And in my activity, I do: final String page = htmlPage.substring(start, end).trim(); //Create new instance of the AsyncTask.. new UIThreadProgress(this, new UIThreadCallback() { @Override public void run() { row_id = makeTableRow(row_id, layout, params, matcher); //ADD a row to the table layout. } @Override public void onThreadFinish() { System.out.println("FINISHED!!"); } @Override public boolean condition() { return matcher.find(); } }).execute(); So the above creates an async task to run to update a table layout activity while showing the progress bar that displays how much work has been done.. However, I get an error saying that only the thread that started the activity can update its views. I tried doing: MainActivity.this.runOnUiThread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { row_id = makeTableRow(row_id, layout, params, matcher); //ADD a row to the table layout. } } But this gives me synchronization errors.. Any ideas how I can display progress and at the same time update my table in the background? Currently my UI looks like:

    Read the article

  • pthread_exit return value

    - by Manty
    This is surprising for me. void * thread_func(void *arg) { pthread_exit(&ret); } int main(void) { pthread_t thr; int *exit_status; pthread_create(&thr, NULL, thread_func, NULL); sleep(2); pthread_join(thr, (void **)&exit_status); printf("value of exit status - %d\n", *exit_status); ret = 20; pthread_join(thr, (void **)&exit_status); printf("value of exit status - %d\n", *exit_status); return 0; } The output is value of exit status - 50 value of exit status - 20 I was expecting both the times the exit_status would be the actual exit value(50 in my case) of the thread. Instead it is just returning the value of the global variable which I used for pthread_exit. Is it not a bug?

    Read the article

  • Objective-C: Allocation in one thread and release in other

    - by user423977
    Hi I am doing this in my Main Thread: CCAnimation *anim; //class variable [NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(loadAimation) toTarget:self withObject:nil]; In loadAimation: -(void) loadAimation { NSAutoreleasePool *autoreleasepool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; anim = [[CCAnimaton alloc] init]; [autoreleasepool drain]; } And in main thread I release it: [anim release]; Now I want to ask if this is fine regarding memory management.

    Read the article

  • New to threading in C#, can you make thread methods generic and what are the dangers?

    - by ibarczewski
    Hey all, I'm just now starting to get into the idea of threading, and wanted to know if I could make this more abstract. Both foo and bar derive methods from a base class, so I'd like to pass in one or the other and be able to do work using a method that was derived. I'd also like to know how you properly name threads and the methods inside threads. if (ChkFoo.Checked) { Thread fooThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThreadedFooMethod)); fooThread.Start(); } if (ChkBar.Checked) { Thread barThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThreadedBarMethod)); barThread.Start(); } . . . public void ThreadedFooMethod() { Foo newFoo = new Foo(); //Do work on newFoo } public void ThreadedBarMethod() { Bar newBar = new Bar(); //Do similar work } Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • How to synchronize access to many objects

    - by vividos
    I have a thread pool with some threads (e.g. as many as number of cores) that work on many objects, say thousands of objects. Normally I would give each object a mutex to protect access to its internals, lock it when I'm doing work, then release it. When two threads would try to access the same object, one of the threads has to wait. Now I want to save some resources and be scalable, as there may be thousands of objects, and still only a hand full of threads. I'm thinking about a class design where the thread has some sort of mutex or lock object, and assigns the lock to the object when the object should be accessed. This would save resources, as I only have as much lock objects as I have threads. Now comes the programming part, where I want to transfer this design into code, but don't know quite where to start. I'm programming in C++ and want to use Boost classes where possible, but self written classes that handle these special requirements are ok. How would I implement this? My first idea was to have a boost::mutex object per thread, and each object has a boost::shared_ptr that initially is unset (or NULL). Now when I want to access the object, I lock it by creating a scoped_lock object and assign it to the shared_ptr. When the shared_ptr is already set, I wait on the present lock. This idea sounds like a heap full of race conditions, so I sort of abandoned it. Is there another way to accomplish this design? A completely different way?

    Read the article

  • Create table class as a singleton

    - by Mark
    I got a class that I use as a table. This class got an array of 16 row classes. These row classes all have 6 double variables. The values of these rows are set once and never change. Would it be a good practice to make this table a singleton? The advantage is that it cost less memory, but the table will be called from multiple threads so I have to synchronize my code which way cause a bit slower application. However lookups in this table are probably a very small portion of the total code that is executed. EDIT: This is my code, are there better ways to do this or is this a good practice? Removed synchronized keyword according to recommendations in this question. final class HalfTimeTable { private HalfTimeRow[] table = new HalfTimeRow[16]; private static final HalfTimeTable instance = new HalfTimeTable(); private HalfTimeTable() { if (instance != null) { throw new IllegalStateException("Already instantiated"); } table[0] = new HalfTimeRow(4.0, 1.2599, 0.5050, 1.5, 1.7435, 0.1911); table[1] = new HalfTimeRow(8.0, 1.0000, 0.6514, 3.0, 1.3838, 0.4295); //etc } @Override @Deprecated public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException { throw new CloneNotSupportedException(); } public static HalfTimeTable getInstance() { return instance; } public HalfTimeRow getRow(int rownumber) { return table[rownumber]; } }

    Read the article

  • Java - multithreaded access to a local value store which is periodically cleared

    - by Telax
    I'm hoping for some advice or suggestions on how best to handle multi threaded access to a value store. My local value storage is designed to hold onto objects which are currently in use. If the object is not in use then it is removed from the store. A value is pumped into my store via thread1, its entry into the store is announced to listeners, and the value is stored. Values coming in on thread1 will either be totally new values or updates for existing values. A timer is used to periodically remove any value from the store which is not currently in use and so all that remains of this value is its ID held locally by an intermediary. Now, an active element on thread2 may wake up and try to access a set of values by passing a set of value IDs which it knows about. Some values will be stored already (great) and some may not (sadface). Those values which are not already stored will be retrieved from an external source. My main issue is that items which have not already been stored and are currently being queried for may arrive in on thread1 before the query is complete. I'd like to try and avoid locking access to the store whilst a query is being made as it may take some time.

    Read the article

  • Waiting for thread to finish Python

    - by lunchtime
    Alright, here's my problem. I have a thread that creates another thread in a pool, applies async so I can work with the returned data, which is working GREAT. But I need the current thread to WAIT until the result is returned. Here is the simplified code, as the current script is over 300 lines. I'm sure i've included everything for you to make sense of what I'm attempting: from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool import threading pool = ThreadPool(processes=1) class MyStreamer(TwythonStreamer): #[...] def on_success(self, data): #### Everytime data comes in, this is called #[...] #<Pseudocode> if score >= limit if list exists: Do stuff elif list does not exist: #</Pseudocode> dic = [] dic.append([k1, v1]) did = dict(dic) async_result = pool.apply_async(self.list_step, args=(did)) return_val = async_result.get() slug = return_val[0] idd = return_val[1] #[...] def list_step(self, *args): ## CREATE LIST ## RETURN 2 VALUES class threadStream (threading.Thread): def __init__(self, auth): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.auth = auth def run(self): stream = MyStreamer(auth = auth[0], *auth[0]) stream.statuses.filter(track=auth[1]) t = threadStream(auth=AuthMe) t.start() I receive the results as intended, which is great, but how do I make it so this thread t waits for the async_result to come in?? My problem is everytime new data comes in, it seems that the ## CREATE LIST function is called multiple times if similar data comes in quickly enough. So I'm ending up with many lists of the same name when I have code in place to ensure that a list will never be created if the name already exists. So to reiterate: How do I make this thread wait on the function to complete before accepting new data / continuing. I don't think time.sleep() works because on_success is called when data enters the stream. I don't think Thread.Join() will work either since I have to use a ThreadPool.apply_async to receive the data I need. Is there a hack I can make in the MyStreamer class somehow? I'm kind of at a loss here. Am I over complicating things and can this be simplified to do what I want?

    Read the article

  • java threads don't see shared boolean changes

    - by andymur
    Here the code class Aux implements Runnable { private Boolean isOn = false; private String statusMessage; private final Object lock; public Aux(String message, Object lock) { this.lock = lock; this.statusMessage = message; } @Override public void run() { for (;;) { synchronized (lock) { if (isOn && "left".equals(this.statusMessage)) { isOn = false; System.out.println(statusMessage); } else if (!isOn && "right".equals(this.statusMessage)) { isOn = true; System.out.println(statusMessage); } if ("left".equals(this.statusMessage)) { System.out.println("left " + isOn); } } } } } public class Question { public static void main(String [] args) { Object lock = new Object(); new Thread(new Aux("left", lock)).start(); new Thread(new Aux("right", lock)).start(); } } In this code I expect to see: left, right, left right and so on, but when Thread with "left" message changes isOn to false, Thread with "right" message don't see it and I get ("right true" and "left false" console messages), left thread don't get isOn in true, but right Thread can't change it cause it always see old isOn value (true). When i add volatile modifier to isOn nothing changes, but if I change isOn to some class with boolean field and change this field then threads are see changes and it works fine Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How can I get back into my main processing thread?

    - by daveomcd
    I have an app that I'm accessing a remote website with NSURLConnection to run some code and then save out some XML files. I am then accessing those XML Files and parsing through them for information. The process works fine except that my User Interface isn't getting updated properly. I want to keep the user updated through my UILabel. I'm trying to update the text by using setBottomBarToUpdating:. It works the first time when I set it to "Processing Please Wait..."; however, in the connectionDidFinishLoading: it doesn't update. I'm thinking my NSURLConnection is running on a separate thread and my attempt with the dispatch_get_main_queue to update on the main thread isn't working. How can I alter my code to resolve this? Thanks! [If I need to include more information/code just let me know!] myFile.m NSLog(@"Refreshing..."); dispatch_sync( dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{ [self getResponse:@"http://mylocation/path/to/file.aspx"]; }); [self setBottomBarToUpdating:@"Processing Please Wait..."]; queue = dispatch_queue_create("updateQueue", DISPATCH_QUEUE_CONCURRENT); connectionDidFinishLoading: if ([response rangeOfString:@"Complete"].location == NSNotFound]) { // failed } else { //success dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(),^ { [self setBottomBarToUpdating:@"Updating Contacts..."]; }); [self updateFromXMLFile:@"http://thislocation.com/path/to/file.xml"]; dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(),^ { [self setBottomBarToUpdating:@"Updating Emails..."]; }); [self updateFromXMLFile:@"http://thislocation.com/path/to/file2.xml"]; }

    Read the article

  • Should I use multiple threads in this situation? [Ruby]

    - by mr popo
    I'm opening multiple files and processing them, one line at a time. The files contain tokens separating the data, such that sometimes the processing of one file may have to wait for others to catch up to that same token. I was doing this initially with only one thread and an array indicating with true/false if the file should be read in the current iteration or if it should wait for some of the others to catch up. Would using threads make this simpler? More efficient? Does Ruby have a mechanism for this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >