Search Results

Search found 8588 results on 344 pages for 'thread abort'.

Page 12/344 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

• java.util.ConcurrentModificationException when serializing non thread-safe maps

  - by [email protected]

  We have got some questions related to exceptions thrown during a map serialization like the following one (in this example, for a LRUMap): java.util.ConcurrentModificationExceptionat org.apache.commons.collections.SequencedHashMap$OrderedIterator.next(Unknown Source)at org.apache.commons.collections.LRUMap.writeExternal(Unknown Source)at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeExternalData(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeOrdinaryObject(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject0(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.defaultWriteFields(ObjectOutputStream.java(Inlined CompiledCode))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeSerialData(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeOrdinaryObject(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject0(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.defaultWriteFields(ObjectOutputStream.java(Inlined CompiledCode))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeSerialData(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeOrdinaryObject(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject0(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.defaultWriteFields(ObjectOutputStream.java(Inlined CompiledCode))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeSerialData(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeOrdinaryObject(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject0(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at java.io.ObjectOutputStream.writeObject(ObjectOutputStream.java(Compiled Code))at com.tangosol.util.ExternalizableHelper.writeSerializable(ExternalizableHelper.java(InlinedCompiled Code))at com.tangosol.util.ExternalizableHelper.writeObjectInternal(ExternalizableHelper.java(Compiled Code))at com.tangosol.util.ExternalizableHelper.serializeInternal(ExternalizableHelper.java(Compiled Code))at com.tangosol.util.ExternalizableHelper.toBinary(ExternalizableHelper.java(InlinedCompiled Code))at com.tangosol.util.ExternalizableHelper.toBinary(ExternalizableHelper.java(InlinedCompiled Code))at com.tangosol.coherence.servlet.TraditionalHttpSessionModel$OptimizedHolder.serializeValue(TraditionalHttpSessionModel.java(Inlined Compiled Code))at com.tangosol.coherence.servlet.TraditionalHttpSessionModel$OptimizedHolder.getBinary(TraditionalHttpSessionModel.java(Compiled Code)) This is caused because LRUMap is not thread safe, so if another thread is modifying the content of that same map while serialization is in progress, then the ConcurrentModificationException will be thrown. Also, the map must be synchronized. Other structures like java.util.HashMap are not thread safe too. To avoid this kind of problems, it is recommended to use a thread-safe and synchronized map such as java.util.Map, java.util.Hashtable or com.tangosol.util.SafeHashMap. You may also need to use the synchronizedMap(Map) method from Class java.util.Collections.  

  Read the article

• C# Abort()ing threads on exit for a Form

  - by Gio Borje

  So far I have this code run when the X button is clicked, but I'm not sure if this is the correct way to terminate threads on a form on exit. Type t = this.GetType(); foreach (PropertyInfo pi in t.GetProperties()) { if (pi.GetType() == typeof(Thread)) { MethodInfo mi = pi.GetType().GetMethod("Abort"); mi.Invoke(null, new object[] {}); } } I keep getting this error: "An attempt has been made to free an RCW that is in use. The RCW is in use on the active thread or another thread. Attempting to free an in-use RCW can cause corruption or data loss."

  Read the article

• How to properly multi thread an RPG

  - by Nagrom_17

  I am working on an RPG type game in Java and I would like to know a few things relating to threading, What is the best way to implement a "wait for this then do this" without hanging the whole thread? Like waiting for a player to move to a location then pick up an item? or to wait one second then attack? Currently I am spawning new threads every time I need to wait for something, but that doesn't feel like the best solution. Any help is appreciated. EDIT: Clarification and an example of how I currently do things. User clicks on an item The function walkToAndPickUp(item) is called which is basically this: Make a new thread so we don't freeze the thread handling input while the player moves. Tell player to move to the item While the player is not at the item(The player moves through an update() function called in a different thread, I don't know how else to do it without freezing threads) Repeat until the player is at the item If the player is at the item then call delete item from map and add to inventory.

  Read the article

• Thread won't stop when I want it to? (Java)

  - by Stuart

  I have a thread in my screen recording application that won't cooperate: package recorder; import java.awt.AWTException; import java.awt.Insets; import java.io.IOException; import javax.swing.JFrame; public class RepeatThread extends Thread { boolean stop; public volatile Thread recordingThread; JFrame frame; int count = 0; RepeatThread( JFrame myFrame ) { stop = false; frame = myFrame; } public void run() { while( stop == false ) { int loopDelay = 33; // 33 is approx. 1000/30, or 30 fps long loopStartTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); Insets insets = frame.getInsets(); // Get the shape we're recording try { ScreenRecorder.capture( frame.getX() + insets.left, frame.getY() + insets.top, frame.getWidth() - ( insets.left + insets.right ), frame.getHeight() - ( insets.top + insets.bottom ) ); } catch( AWTException e1 ) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e1.printStackTrace(); } catch( IOException e1 ) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e1.printStackTrace(); } // Add another picture long loopEndTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); int loopTime = (int )( loopEndTime - loopStartTime ); if( loopTime < loopDelay ) { try { sleep( loopDelay - loopTime ); // If we have extra time, // sleep } catch( Exception e ) { } // If something interrupts it, I don't give a crap; just // ignore it } } } public void endThread() { stop = true; count = 0; ScreenRecorder.reset(); // Once I get this annoying thread to work, I have to make the pictures // into a video here! } } It's been bugging me for ages. It periodically takes screenshots to the specified area. When you start recording, it hides (decativates) the window. On a Mac, when you give an application focus, any hidden windows will activate. In my class WListener (which I have confirmed to work), I have: public void windowActivated(WindowEvent e) { if(ScreenRecorder.recordingThread != null) { ScreenRecorder.recordingThread.endThread(); } } So what SHOULD happen is, the screenshot-taking thread stops when he clicks on the application. However, I must be brutally screwing something up, because when the thread is running, it won't even let the window reappear. This is my first thread, so I expected a weird problem like this. Do you know what's wrong?

  Read the article

• Delphi - Help calling threaded dll function from another thread

  - by cloudstrif3

  I'm using Delphi 2006 and have a bit of a problem with an application I'm developing. I have a form that creates a thread which calls a function that performs a lengthy operation, lets call it LengthyProcess. Inside the LengthyProcess function we also call several Dll functions which also create threads of their own. The problem that I am having is that if I don't use the Synchronize function of my thread to call LengthyProcess the thread stops responding (the main thread is still responding fine). I don't want to use Synchronize because that means the main thread is waiting for LengthyProcess to finish and therefore defeats the purpose of creating a separate thread. I have tracked the problem down to a function inside the dll that creates a thread and then calls WaitFor, this is all done using TThread by the way. WaitFor checks to see if the CurrentThreadID is equal to the MainThreadID and if it is then it will call CheckSychronization, and all is fine. So if we use Synchronize then the CurrentThreadID will equal the MainThreadID however if we do not use Synchronize then of course CurrentThreadID < MainThreadID, and when this happens WaitFor tells the current thread (the thread I created) to wait for the thread created by the DLL and so CheckSynchronization never gets called and my thread ends up waiting forever for the thread created in the dll. I hope this makes sense, sorry I don't know any better way to explain it. Has anyone else had this issue and knows how to solve it please?

  Read the article

• Access denied from another thread

  - by Lobuno

  Hello! In a program I span a thread ("the working thread"). Hera I copy some files write some data to a database and eventually, delete some other files or directories. Everything works fine. The problem is now, that I decided to move the deleting operation to some other thread. So the working thread now copies the files or directories, writes to the database, and , if there is a need to delete some other files this thread spans another thread and that second thread deleted the needed files or directories. The problem is that,the deletion used to work 100% when done in the working thread, now when the same is done in the secondary thread, I sometimes get an "Access denied" error and the files cannot be deleted. And no, the working thread is definitely NOT acceding the files and directories to delete at this moment. Sometimes (but not always) the main thread is impersonating some user, so if needed , the deleting thread is also running under impersonation just to grant the needed permissions to delete the files, so that should not be the problem. Anybody has a clue why this could be happening?

  Read the article

• Does the managed main UI thread stay on the same (unmanaged) Operation System thread?

  - by Daniel Rose

  I am creating a managed WPF UI front-end to a legacy Win32-application. The WPF front-end is the executable; as part of its startup routines I start the legacy app as a DLL in a second thread. Any UI-operation (including CreateWindowsEx, etc.) by the legacy app is invoked back on the main UI-thread. As part of the shutdown process of the app I want to clean up properly. Among other things, I want to call DestroyWindow on all unmanaged windows, so they can properly clean themselves up. Thus, during shutdown I use EnumWindows to try to find all my unmanaged windows. Then I call DestroyWindow one the list I generate. These run on the main UI-thread. After this background knowledge, on to my actual question: In the enumeration procedure of EnumWindows, I have to check if one of the returned top-level windows is one of my unmanaged windows. I do this by calling GetWindowThreadProcessId to get the process id and thread id of the window's creator. I can compare the process id with Process.GetCurrentProcess().Id to check if my app created it. For additional security, I also want to see if my main UI-thread created the window. However, the returned thread id is the OS's ThreadId (which is different than the managed thread id). As explained in this question, the CLR reserves the right to re-schedule the managed thread to different OS threads. Can I rely on the CLR to be "smart enough" to never do this for the main UI thread (due to thread-affinity of the UI)? Then I could call GetCurrentThreadId to get the main UI-thread's unmanaged thread id for comparison.

  Read the article

• Thread-safety in Cocos2d-iPhone?

  - by Malax

  After tinkering a bit with cocos2d, I discovered that there is no classic game loop and everything is more-or-less event driven. I guess I can wrap my head around that, no problem. But I cannot find anything about thread safety. Say, I schedule something to occur every two seconds, which Thread will run the code? Given that I cannot find anything about that, I guess there is just one Cocos2d Thread and everything will be fine. Nevertheless, this implicit assumption does not give me a good feeling. Knowing is better than guessing. ;-) Can anyone shed some light onto that topic?

  Read the article

• Getting Current Native Thread

  - by Ricardo Peres

  The native OS threads running in the current process are exposed through the Threads property of the Process class. Please note that this is not the same as a managed thread, these are the actual native threads running on the operating system. In order to get a pointer to the current executing thread, we must use P/Invoke. Here's how we do it: [DllImport("kernel32.dll")] public static extern UInt32 GetCurrentThreadId(); UInt32 id = GetCurrentThreadId(); ProcessThread thread = Process.GetCurrentProcess().Threads.Cast().Where(t = t.Id == id).Single(); SyntaxHighlighter.config.clipboardSwf = 'http://alexgorbatchev.com/pub/sh/2.0.320/scripts/clipboard.swf'; SyntaxHighlighter.brushes.CSharp.aliases = ['c#', 'c-sharp', 'csharp']; SyntaxHighlighter.all();

  Read the article

• Thread problem updating Windows Forms control in XNA C#

  - by Luis

  I'm development a network card game, and for now i've two players connected but there is a problem with one of them, this one can't do anything on the game. Looks that screen was blocked. I'm think that is because a code i used before. That code is: if (InvokeRequired) { this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { ... })); return; } The code above is surrounding code to changing Button values, make connection with server and create game window. Without this code a warning is shown. InvalidOperationException was unhandled Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'startGameButton' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.

  Read the article

• Thread problem with XNA C#

  - by Luis

  I'm development a network card game, and for now i've two players connected but there is a problem with one of them, this one can't do anything on the game. Looks that screen was blocked. I'm think that is because a code i used before. That code is: if (InvokeRequired) { this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { ... })); return; } The code above is surrounding code to changing Button values, make connection with server and create game window. Without this code a warning is shown. InvalidOperationException was unhandled Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'startGameButton' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.

  Read the article

• How to abort robocopy on first error

  - by Yurik

  When using robocopy windows utility, what flags do I set so that robocopy aborts on the very first error it sees, similar to xcopy /dry command? I need to mirror two dirs, and on occasion some files would be locked. I do not want robocopy to continue trying to copy files, or override the files that are not locked - rather the very first error should stop the whole copy process. UPDATE: I already have the /R set to 0 - unfortunately that it only applies to a single file, NOT to the whole copying process. Hence, the first file is ignored (instead of stopping the copying), but subsequent files are copied.

  Read the article

• Why does calling abort() on ajax request cause error in ASP.Net MVC (IE8)

  - by user169867

  I use jquery to post to an MVC controller action that returns a table of information. The user of the page triggers this by clicking on various links. In the event the user decides to click a bunch of these links in quick succession I wanted to cancel any previous ajax request that may not have finished. I've found that when I do this (although its fine from the client's POV) I will get errors on the web application saying that "The parameters dictionary contains a null entry for parameter srtCol of non-nullable type 'System.Int32'" Now the ajax post deffinately passes in all the parameters, and if I don't try and cancel the ajax request it works just fine. But if I do cancel the request by calling abort() on the XMLHttpRequest object that ajax() returns before it finishes I get the error from ASP.Net MVC. Example: //Cancel any pevious request if (req) { req.abort(); req = null; } //Make new request req= $.ajax({ type: 'POST', url: "/Myapp/GetTbl", data: {srtCol: srt, view: viewID}, success: OnSuccess, error: OnError, dataType: "html" }); I've noticed this only happen is IE8. In FF it seems to not cuase a problem. Does anyone know how to cancel an ajax request in IE8 without causing errors for MVC? Thanks for any help.

  Read the article

• How to abort robocopy on first error

  - by Yurik

  When using robocopy windows utility, what flags do I set so that robocopy aborts on the very first error it sees, similar to xcopy /dry command? I need to mirror two dirs, and on occasion some files would be locked. I do not want robocopy to continue trying to copy files, or override the files that are not locked - rather the very first error should stop the whole copy process.

  Read the article

• Wake up thread blocked on accept() call

  - by selbie

  Sockets on Linux question I have a worker thread that is blocked on an accept() call. It simply waits for an incoming network connection, handles it, and then returns to listening for the next connection. When it is time for the program to exit, how do I signal this network worker thread (from the main thread) to return from the accept() call while still being able to gracefully exit its loop and handle it's cleanup code. Some things I tried: 1. pthread_kill to send a signal. Feels kludgy to do this, plus it doesn't reliably allow the thread to do it's shutdown logic. Also makes the program terminate as well. I'd like to avoid signals if at all possible. pthread_cancel. Same as above. It's a harsh kill on the thread. That, and the thread may be doing something else. Closing the listen socket from the main thread in order to make accept() abort. This doesn't reliably work. Some constraints: If the solution involves making the listen socket non-blocking, that is fine. But I don't want to accept a solution that involves the thread waking up via a select call every few seconds to check the exit condition. The thread condition to exit may not be tied to the process exiting. Essentially, the logic I am going for looks like this. void* WorkerThread(void* args) { DoSomeImportantInitialization(); // initialize listen socket and some thread specific stuff while (HasExitConditionBeenSet()==false) { listensize = sizeof(listenaddr); int sock = accept(listensocket, &listenaddr, &listensize); // check if exit condition has been set using thread safe semantics if (HasExitConditionBeenSet()) { break; } if (sock < 0) { printf("accept returned %d (errno==%d)\n", sock, errno); } else { HandleNewNetworkCondition(sock, &listenaddr); } } DoSomeImportantCleanup(); // close listen socket, close connections, cleanup etc.. return NULL; } void SignalHandler(int sig) { printf("Caught CTRL-C\n"); } void NotifyWorkerThreadToExit(pthread_t thread_handle) { // signal thread to exit } int main() { void* ptr_ret= NULL; pthread_t workerthread_handle = 0; pthread_create(&workerthread, NULL, WorkerThread, NULL); signal(SIGINT, SignalHandler); sleep((unsigned int)-1); // sleep until the user hits ctrl-c printf("Returned from sleep call...\n"); SetThreadExitCondition(); // sets global variable with barrier that worker thread checks on // this is the function I'm stalled on writing NotifyWorkerThreadToExit(workerthread_handle); // wait for thread to exit cleanly pthread_join(workerthread_handle, &ptr_ret); DoProcessCleanupStuff(); }

  Read the article

• How do I start a thread in a different security context?

  - by nitroxn

  How to start a thread in the security context of a different user? When a process starts a thread normally the security context is also passed but how to launch a thread in a different security context with the principal of a different user?

  Read the article

• Thread Local Memory, Using std::string's internal buffer for c-style Scratch Memory.

  - by Hassan Syed

  I am using Protocol Buffers and OpensSSL to generate, HMACs and then CBC encrypt the two fields to obfuscate the session cookies -- similar Kerberos tokens. Protocol Buffers' API communicates with std::strings and has a buffer caching mechanism; I exploit the caching mechanism, for successive calls in the the same thread, by placing it in thread local memory; additionally the OpenSSL HMAC and EVP CTX's are also placed in the same thread local memory structure ( see this question for some detail on why I use thread local memory and the massive amount of speedup it enables even with a single thread). The generation and deserialization, "my algorithms", of these cookie strings uses intermediary void *s and std::strings and since Protocol Buffers has an internal memory retention mechanism I want these characteristics for "my algorithms". So how do I implement a common scratch memory ? I don't know much about the rdbuf(streambuf - strinbuf ??) of the std::string object. I would presumeably need to grow it to the lowest common size ever encountered during the execution of "my algorithms". Thoughts ? My question I guess would be: " is the internal buffer of a string re-usable, and if so, how ?" Edit: See comments to Vlad's answer please.

  Read the article

• How to indefinitely pause a thread in Java and later resume it?

  - by Carlos Torres

  Maybe this question has been asked many times before, but I never found a satisfying answer. The problem: I have to simulate a process scheduler, using the round robin strategy. I'm using threads to simulate processes and multiprogramming; everything works fine with the JVM managing the threads. But the thing is that now I want to have control of all the threads so that I can run each thread alone by a certain quantum (or time), just like real OS processes schedulers. What I'm thinking to do: I want have a list of all threads, as I iterate the list I want to execute each thread for their corresponding quantum, but as soon the time's up I want to pause that thread indefinitely until all threads in the list are executed and then when I reach the same thread again resume it and so on. The question: So is their a way, without using deprecated methods stop(), suspend(), or resume(), to have this control over threads?

  Read the article

• VB.net: Is my Thread Safe List Solution actually safe?

  - by Shiftbit

  I've added teh following Extensions to my Project in order to create a thread safe list: Extensions If I want to conduct a simple operation on my list <Extension()> _ Public Sub Action(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T), ByVal action As Action(Of List(Of T))) SyncLock (list) action(list) End SyncLock End Sub If I want to pass it more than one parameter I could simply extend it with more items... <Extension()> _ Public Sub Action(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T), ByVal action As Action(Of List(Of T), T), ByVal item As T) SyncLock (list) Action(list, item) End SyncLock End Sub Actions I have created the following Action Examples: Private Sub Read(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T)) Console.WriteLine("Read") For Each item As T In list Console.WriteLine(item.ToString) Thread.Sleep(10) Next End Sub and also one that takes a parameter: Private Sub Write(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T), ByVal item As T) Thread.Sleep(100) list.Add(item) Console.WriteLine("Write") End Sub Initiating Then in my various threads I will call my Actions with: list.Action(AddressOf Read) or list.Action(AddressOf Write2, 10) Are these Extenxion methods thread safe or do you have other recommendations?

  Read the article

• Best way to identify and dispose locked thread in java.

  - by Bala R

  I have to call a function 3rd party module on a new thread. From what I've seen, the call either completes quickly if everything went well or it just hangs for ever locking up the thread. What's a good way to start the thread and make the call and wait for a few secs and if the thread is still alive, then assuming it's locked up, kill (or stop or abandon) the thread without using any deprecated methods. I have something like this for now, but I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it and I want to avoid calling Thread.stop() as it's deprecated. Thanks. private void foo() throws Exception { Runnable runnable = new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { // stuff that could potentially lock up the thread. } }; Thread thread; thread = new Thread(runnable); thread.start(); thread.join(3500); if (thread.isAlive()) { thread.stop(); throw new Exception(); } }

  Read the article

• how to emulate thread local storage at user space in C++ ?

  - by vprajan

  I am working on a mobile platform over Nucleus RTOS. It uses Nucleus Threading system but it doesn't have support for explicit thread local storage i.e, TlsAlloc, TlsSetValue, TlsGetValue, TlsFree APIs. The platform doesn't have user space pthreads as well. I found that __thread storage modifier is present in most of the C++ compilers. But i don't know how to make it work for my kind of usage. How does __thread keyword can be mapped with explicit thread local storage? I read many articles but nothing is so clear for giving me the following basic information will __thread variable different for each thread ? How to write to that and read from it ? does each thread has exactly one copy of the variable ? following is the pthread based implementation: pthread_key_t m_key; struct Data : Noncopyable { Data(T* value, void* owner) : value(value), owner(owner) {} int* value; }; inline ThreadSpecific() { int error = pthread_key_create(&m_key, destroy); if (error) CRASH(); } inline ~ThreadSpecific() { pthread_key_delete(m_key); // Does not invoke destructor functions. } inline T* get() { Data* data = static_cast<Data*>(pthread_getspecific(m_key)); return data ? data->value : 0; } inline void set(T* ptr) { ASSERT(!get()); pthread_setspecific(m_key, new Data(ptr, this)); } How to make the above code use __thread way to set & get specific value ? where/when does the create & delete happen? If this is not possible, how to write custom pthread_setspecific, pthread_getspecific kind of APIs. I tried using a C++ global map and index it uniquely for each thread and retrieved data from it. But it didn't work well.

  Read the article

• what is thread useful in python..,when to use this module..

  - by zjm1126

  can you give me a thread simple, thanks

  Read the article

• C# Drawing On Separate Thread [migrated]

  - by Zaid

  I have a "public static" class called "DrawTest" and inside is a method public static DrawRandomRectangle(Bitmap g) { } I want to call that method and draw bunches of stuff and then update the pictureBox that uses the image on a separate thread. To simplify, I'm not trying to make anything specific I'm just trying to learn how to draw and update an image inside of a picturebox on a separate thread.

  Read the article

• Backgroundworker abort

  - by MazarD

  Hi, I recently tried to use backgroundworker instead of "classic" threads and I'm realizing that it's causing, at least for me, more problems than solutions. I have a backgroundworker running a synchronous read (in this case from serialPort) and getting blocked around 30 seconds in 1 code line, then cancellationpending isn't the solution. I'm seeing that if the application gets closed at this point (either with the cross button and Application.Exit()) the process keeps zombie forever. I need a way to force abort or to kill the backgroundworker thread.

  Read the article

• Mercurial error: abort no username supplied

  - by Kevin Won

  Problem on WindowsXP (likely will happen on all Win installs), first time using Mercurial. I found the answer in an inobvious place so I'm asking/answering the question myself so others don't have to search like I did. First time using Mercurial on machine. Add new repoz: c:\bla\>hg add no problem. Next, commit: c:\bla\hg commit error: abort: no username supplied (see "hg help config")

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >