Search Results

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

Page 58/66 | < Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • How do I read and write to a file using threads in java?

    - by WarmWaffles
    I'm writing an application where I need to read blocks in from a single file, each block is roughly 512 bytes. I am also needing to write blocks simultaneously. One of the ideas I had was BlockReader implements Runnable and BlockWriter implements Runnable and BlockManager manages both the reader and writer. The problem that I am seeing with most examples that I have found was locking problems and potential deadlock situations. Any ideas how to implement this?

    Read the article

  • Java redirected system output to jtext area, doesnt update until calculation is finished

    - by user1806716
    I have code that redirects system output to a jtext area, but that jtextarea doesnt update until the code is finished running. How do I modify the code to make the jtextarea update in real time during runtime? private void updateTextArea(final String text) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { consoleTextAreaInner.append(text); } }); } private void redirectSystemStreams() { OutputStream out = new OutputStream() { @Override public void write(int b) throws IOException { updateTextArea(String.valueOf((char) b)); } @Override public void write(byte[] b, int off, int len) throws IOException { updateTextArea(new String(b, off, len)); } @Override public void write(byte[] b) throws IOException { write(b, 0, b.length); } }; System.setOut(new PrintStream(out, true)); System.setErr(new PrintStream(out, true)); } The rest of the code is mainly just an actionlistener for a button: private void updateButtonActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) { // TODO add your handling code here: String shopRoot = this.shopRootDirTxtField.getText(); String updZipPath = this.updateZipTextField.getText(); this.mainUpdater = new ShopUpdater(new File(shopRoot), updZipPath); this.mainUpdater.update(); } That update() method begins the process of copying+pasting files on the file system and during that process uses system.out.println to provide an up-to-date status on where the program is currently at in reference to how many more files it has to copy.

    Read the article

  • std::thread and class constructor and destructor

    - by toeplitz
    When testing threads in C++11 I have created the following example: #include <iostream> #include <thread> class Foo { public: Foo(void) { std::cout << "Constructor called: " << this << std::endl; } ~Foo(void) { std::cout << "Destructor called: " << this << std::endl; } void operator()() const { std::cout << "Operatior called: " << this << std::endl; } }; void test_normal(void) { std::cout << "====> Standard example:" << std::endl; Foo f; } void test_thread(void) { std::cout << "====> Thread example:" << std::endl; Foo f; std::thread t(f); t.detach(); } int main(int argc, char **argv) { test_normal(); test_thread(); for(;;); } Which prints the following: Why is the destructor called 6 times for the thread? And why does the thread report different memory locations?

    Read the article

  • makecontext segfault?

    - by cdietschrun
    I am working on a homework assignment that will be due in the next semester. It requires us to implement our own context switching/thread library using the ucontext API. The professor provides code that does it, but before a thread returns, he manually does some work and calls an ISR that finds another thread to use and swapcontexts to it or if none are left, exits. The point of the assignment is to use the uc_link field of the context so that when it hits a return it takes care of the work. I've created a function (type void/void args) that just does the work the functions did before (clean up and then calls ISR). The professor said he wanted this. So all that's left is to do a makecontext somewhere along the way on the context in the uc_link field so that it runs my thread, right? Well, when I do makecontext on seemingly any combination of ucontext_t's and function, I get a segfault and gdb provides no help.. I can skip the makecontext and my program exist 'normally' when it hits a return in the threads I created because (presumably) the uc_link field is not properly setup (which is what I'm trying to do). I also can't find anything on why makecontext would segfault. Can anyone help? stack2.ss_sp = (void *)(malloc(STACKSIZE)); if(stack2.ss_sp == NULL){ printf("thread failed to get stack space\n"); exit(8); } stack2.ss_size = STACKSIZE; stack2.ss_flags = 0; if(getcontext(&main_context) == -1){ perror("getcontext in t_init, rtn_env"); exit(5); } //main_context.uc_stack = t_state[i].mystk; main_context.uc_stack = stack2; main_context.uc_link = 0; makecontext(&main_context, (void (*)(void))thread_rtn, 0); I've also tried just thread_rtn, &thread_rtn and other things. thread_rtn is declared as void thread_rtn(void). later, in each thread. run_env is of type ucontext_t: ... t_state[i].run_env.uc_link = &main_context;

    Read the article

  • [java] run 2 threads simultaneously

    - by lamsaitat
    hi all, in the case of an IM client. i have made 2 separate threads to handle sending packets (by std io) and receiving packets. the question is how to make these 2 threads run simultaneously so that i can keep prompting for input while at the same time be ready to receive packets at any time? i have already tried setting a timer but the data is always lost receiving.

    Read the article

  • Error with `Thread.Sleep` during automatic testing on TeamCity 5

    - by yeyeyerman
    Hello, I'm having some problems executing the tests of the application I'm developing. All the tests execute normally with ReSharper and in NCover. However, the execution of one of these tests in TeamCity is generating an error. This test initializes two objects, the object under test and a simulator of a real object. Both objects will communicate throug a serial link in a representation of the real scenario. ObjectSimulator r_simulator = new ObjectSimulator(...); ObjectDriver r_driver = new ObjectDriver(...); Assert.IsTrue(r_driver.Connect() == ErrorCode.Success); The simulator just do the following in the constructor public class ObjectSimulator { ... public ObjectSimulator() { // serial port configuration m_port = new SerialPort(); m_port.DataReceived += DataReceivedEvent; } ... } The main object has two threads. The main thread of the application and a timer to refresh a watchdog timer in the real object. public ErrorCode Connect() { ... StartSynchroTimer(); Thread.Sleep(4); // to check if the timer is working properly ... } The problem seems to be comming from the Thread.Sleep() call, as when I remove it everything works. The ObjectSimulator somehow doesn't execute the DataReceived event callback. How can I resolve this issue?

    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

  • Can I overwrite an Object that has been Locked() in C#?

    - by makerofthings7
    I have a few objects that I'd like to send to the server, but I want to make sure that this is the only thread that moving the data from Stage to Upload. Is the following code valid in a multithreaded environment? List<CounterInternal> UploadToServer = new List<CounterInternal>(); List<CounterInternal> StagingQueue = new List<CounterInternal>(); lock (this.UploadToServer) lock (this.StagingQueue) { if (UploadToServer.Count == 0) { UploadToServer = StagingQueue.DoDeepCopyExtensionMethod(); // is the following line valid given that I have a Lock() on it? StagingQueue = new List<CounterInternal>(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Threaded Python port scanner

    - by Amnite
    I am having issues with a port scanner I'm editing to use threads. This is the basics for the original code: for i in range(0, 2000): s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM) result = s.connect_ex((TargetIP, i)) if(result == 0) : c = "Port %d: OPEN\n" % (i,) s.close() This takes approx 33 minutes to complete. So I thought I'd thread it to make it run a little faster. This is my first threading project so it's nothing too extreme, but I've ran the following code for about an hour and get no exceptions yet no output. Am I just doing the threading wrong or what? import threading from socket import * import time a = 0 b = 0 c = "" d = "" def ScanLow(): global a global c for i in range(0, 1000): s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM) result = s.connect_ex((TargetIP, i)) if(result == 0) : c = "Port %d: OPEN\n" % (i,) s.close() a += 1 def ScanHigh(): global b global d for i in range(1001, 2000): s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM) result = s.connect_ex((TargetIP, i)) if(result == 0) : d = "Port %d: OPEN\n" % (i,) s.close() b += 1 Target = raw_input("Enter Host To Scan:") TargetIP = gethostbyname(Target) print "Start Scan On Host ", TargetIP Start = time.time() threading.Thread(target = ScanLow).start() threading.Thread(target = ScanHigh).start() e = a + b while e < 2000: f = raw_input() End = time.time() - Start print c print d print End g = raw_input()

    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

  • What happens if you break out of a Lock() statement?

    - by cyclotis04
    I'm writing a program which listens to an incoming TcpClient and handles data when it arrives. The Listen() method is run on a separate thread within the component, so it needs to be threadsafe. If I break out of a do while loop while I'm within a lock() statement, will the lock be released? If not, how do I accomplish this? Thanks! (Any other advice on the subject of Asynchronous TCP Sockets is welcome as well.) private void Listen() { do { lock (_client) { if (!_client.Connected) break; lock (_stateLock) { if (!_listening) break; if (_client.GetStream().DataAvailable) HandleData(); } } Thread.Sleep(0); } while (true); }

    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 ThreadPool for multiple identical tasks

    - by tdimmig
    I have 1 thread who sole job is to grab DatagramPackets off of a socket and stick them in a buffer. Another thread works out of that buffer, processing the DatagramPackets. I'd like to have a pool of threads working out of that buffer. I had thought to use a fixed thread pool to do this. To do so, do I need to create the pool, then submit enough runnables for execution to fill it up? I had hoped for a way to say "this is the thread/runnable that I want you to execute, this is how many I want running, GO!". Is there such a method of doing this? Is something other than a fixed thread pool better suited?

    Read the article

  • Interrupt a thread in DatagramSocket.receive

    - by SEK
    I'm building an application that listens on both TCP and UDP, and I've run into some trouble with my shutdown mechanism. When I call Thread.interrupt() on each of the listening threads, the TCP thread is interrupted from listening, whereas the UDP listener isn't. To be specific, the TCP thread uses Socket.accept(), which simply returns (without actually connecting). Whereas the UDP thread uses DatagramSocket.receive, and doesn't exit that method. Is this an issue in my JRE, my OS, or should I just switch to (Datagram)Socket.close()?

    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

  • How do I make this Java code operate properly? [Multi-threaded, race condition]

    - by Fixee
    I got this code from a student, and it does not work properly because of a race condition involving x++ and x--. He added synchronized to the run() method trying to get rid of this bug, but obviously this only excludes threads from entering run() on the same object (which was never a problem in the first place) but doesn't prevent independent objects from updating the same static variable x at the same time. public class DataRace implements Runnable { static volatile int x; public synchronized void run() { for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { x++; x--; } } public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { Thread [] threads = new Thread[100]; for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i] = new Thread(new DataRace()); for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i].start(); for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i].join(); System.out.println(x); // x not always 0! } } Since we cannot synchronize on x (because it is primitive), the best solution I can think of is to create a new static object like static String lock = ""; and enclose the x++ and x-- within a synchronized block, locking on lock. But this seems really awkward. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • C# thread safety for class instances

    - by Steveng
    I am learning C# and I am confused with the thread safety of the copies of the class instances as below: eg: classA objA; classA objB = objA; objA.field1 = value2; //do I need lock around modification of field1? //let say we pass the objB to another thread objB.field1 = value1 //do I need a lock for objB because of the modification of field1? I am confused because coming from the background of C++, the class in C# is the reference type. If both objA and objB refer to the same memory underlying, then I would need a lock to protect the simultaneous writing to the field1. Could someone confirm with this or am I missing something? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • vs2002: c# multi threading question..

    - by dotnet-practitioner
    I would like to invoke heavy duty method dowork on a separate thread and kill it if its taking longer than 3 seconds. Is there any problem with the following code? class Class1 { /// <summary> /// The main entry point for the application. /// </summary> /// [STAThread] static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine("starting new thread"); Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(dowork)); t.Start(); DateTime start = DateTime.Now; TimeSpan span = DateTime.Now.Subtract(start); bool wait = true; while (wait == true) { if (span.Seconds>3) { t.Abort(); wait = false; } span = DateTime.Now.Subtract(start); } Console.WriteLine("ending new thread after seconds = {0}", span.Seconds); Console.WriteLine("all done"); Console.ReadLine(); } static void dowork() { Console.WriteLine("doing heavy work inside hello"); Thread.Sleep(7000); Console.WriteLine("*** finished**** doing heavy work inside hello"); } }

    Read the article

  • Real World Examples of read-write in concurrent software

    - by Richard Fabian
    I'm looking for real world examples of needing read and write access to the same value in concurrent systems. In my opinion, many semaphores or locks are present because there's no known alternative (to the implementer,) but do you know of any patterns where mutexes seem to be a requirement? In a way I'm asking for candidates for the standard set of HARD problems for concurrent software in the real world.

    Read the article

  • c# run process without freezing my App's GUI

    - by Data-Base
    Hello, I want to start a process (calling another program), currently the external program takes time (it is normal)! but it freezes my GUI I saw allot of examples and I'm learning, it is hard to figure it out, trying to read and learn threading, but it is not that easy (at least for me) and good simple tutorial or code sample? cheers

    Read the article

  • Java concurrency - Should block or yield?

    - by teto
    Hi, I have multiple threads each one with its own private concurrent queue and all they do is run an infinite loop retrieving messages from it. It could happen that one of the queues doesn't receive messages for a period of time (maybe a couple seconds), and also they could come in big bursts and fast processing is necessary. I would like to know what would be the most appropriate to do in the first case: use a blocking queue and block the thread until I have more input or do a Thread.yield()? I want to have as much CPU resources available as possible at a given time, as the number of concurrent threads may increase with time, but also I don't want the message processing to fall behind, as there is no guarantee of when the thread will be reescheduled for execution when doing a yield(). I know that hardware, operating system and other factors play an important role here, but setting that aside and looking at it from a Java (JVM?) point of view, what would be the most optimal?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >