Search Results

Search found 413 results on 17 pages for 'atomic clocks'.

Page 14/17 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

• "Work stealing" vs. "Work shrugging"?

  - by John

  Why is it that I can find lots of information on "work stealing" and nothing on "work shrugging" as a dynamic load-balancing strategy? By "work-shrugging" I mean busy processors pushing excessive work towards less loaded neighbours rather than idle processors pulling work from busy neighbours ("work-stealing"). I think the general scalability should be the same for both strategies. However I believe that it is much more efficient for busy processors to wake idle processors if and when there is definitely work for them to do than having idle processors spinning or waking periodically to speculatively poll all neighbours for possible work. Anyway a quick google didn't show up anything under the heading of "Work Shrugging" or similar so any pointers to prior-art and the jargon for this strategy would be welcome. Clarification/Confession In more detail:- By "Work Shrugging" I actually envisage the work submitting processor (which may or may not be the target processor) being responsible for looking around the immediate locality of the preferred target processor (based on data/code locality) to decide if a near neighbour should be given the new work instead because they don't have as much work to do. I am talking about an atomic read of the immediate (typically 2 to 4) neighbours' estimated q length here. I do not think this is any more coupling than implied by the thieves polling & stealing from their neighbours - just much less often - or rather - only when it makes economic sense to do so. (I am assuming "lock-free, almost wait-free" queue structures in both strategies). Thanks.

  Read the article

• Thread safe lazy contruction of a singleton in C++

  - by pauldoo

  Is there a way to implement a singleton object in C++ that is: Lazily constructed in a thread safe manner (two threads might simultaneously be the first user of the singleton - it should still only be constructed once). Doesn't rely on static variables being constructed beforehand (so the singleton object is itself safe to use during the construction of static variables). (I don't know my C++ well enough, but is it the case that integral and constant static variables are initialized before any code is executed (ie, even before static constructors are executed - their values may already be "initialized" in the program image)? If so - perhaps this can be exploited to implement a singleton mutex - which can in turn be used to guard the creation of the real singleton..) Excellent, it seems that I have a couple of good answers now (shame I can't mark 2 or 3 as being the answer). There appears to be two broad solutions: Use static initialisation (as opposed to dynamic initialisation) of a POD static varible, and implementing my own mutex with that using the builtin atomic instructions. This was the type of solution I was hinting at in my question, and I believe I knew already. Use some other library function like pthread_once or boost::call_once. These I certainly didn't know about - and am very grateful for the answers posted.

  Read the article

• How to store a list in a column of a database table.

  - by John Berryman

  Howdy! So, per Mehrdad's answer to a related question, I get it that a "proper" database table column doesn't store a list. Rather, you should create another table that effectively holds the elements of said list and then link to it directly or through a junction table. However, the type of list I want to create will be composed of unique items (unlike the linked question's fruit example). Furthermore, the items in my list are explicitly sorted - which means that if I stored the elements in another table, I'd have to sort them every time I accessed them. Finally, the list is basically atomic in that any time I wish to access the list, I will want to access the entire list rather than just a piece of it - so it seems silly to have to issue a database query to gather together pieces of the list. AKX's solution (linked above) is to serialize the list and store it in a binary column. But this also seems inconvenient because it means that I have to worry about serialization and deserialization. Is there any better solution? If there is no better solution, then why? It seems that this problem should come up from time to time. ... just a little more info to let you know where I'm coming from. As soon as I had just begun understanding SQL and databases in general, I was turned on to LINQ to SQL, and so now I'm a little spoiled because I expect to deal with my programming object model without having to think about how the objects are queried or stored in the database. Thanks All! John

  Read the article

• javascript scope problem when lambda function refers to a variable in enclosing loop

  - by Stefan Blixt

  First question on stackoverflow :) Hope I won't embarrass myself... I have a javascript function that loads a list of albums and then it creates a list item for each album. The list item should be clickable, so I call jQuery's click() with a function that does stuff. I do this in a loop. My problem is that all items seem to get the same click function, even though I try to make a new one that does different stuff in each iteration. Another possibility is that the iteration variable is global somehow, and the function refers to it. Code below. debug() is just an encapsulation of Firebug's console.debug(). function processAlbumList(data, c) { for (var album in data) { var newAlbum = $('<li class="albumLoader">' + data[album].title + '</li>').clone(); var clickAlbum = function() { debug("contents: " + album); }; debug("Album: " + album + "/" + data[album].title); $('.albumlist').append(newAlbum); $(newAlbum).click(clickAlbum); } } Here is a transcript of what it prints when the above function runs, after that are some debug lines caused by me clicking on different items. It always prints "10", which is the last value that the album variable takes (there are 10 albums). Album: 0/Live on radio.electro-music.com Album: 1/Doodles Album: 2/Misc Stuff Album: 3/Drawer Collection Album: 4/Misc Electronic Stuff Album: 5/Odds & Ends Album: 6/Tumbler Album: 7/Bakelit 32 Album: 8/Film Album: 9/Bakelit Album: 10/Slow Zoom/Atomic Heart contents: 10 contents: 10 contents: 10 contents: 10 contents: 10 Any ideas? Driving me up the wall, this is. :) /Stefan

  Read the article

• Best strategy for synching data in iPhone app

  - by iamj4de

  I am working on a regular iPhone app which pulls data from a server (XML, JSON, etc...), and I'm wondering what is the best way to implement synching data. Criteria are speed (less network data exchange), robustness (data recovery in case update fails), offline access and flexibility (adaptable when the structure of the database changes slightly, like a new column). I know it varies from app to app, but can you guys share some of your strategy/experience? For me, I'm thinking of something like this: 1) Store Last Modified Date in iPhone 2) Upon launching, send a message like getNewData.php?lastModifiedDate=... 3) Server will process and send back only modified data from last time. 4) This data is formatted as so: <+><data id="..."></data></+> // add this to SQLite/CoreData <-><data id="..."></data></-> // remove this <%><data id="..."><attribute>newValue</attribute></data></%> // new modified value I don't want to make <+, <-, <%... for each attribute as well, because it would be too complicated, so probably when receive a <% field, I would just remove the data with the specified id and then add it again (assuming id here is not some automatically auto-incremented field). 5) Once everything is downloaded and updated, I will update the Last Modified Date field. The main problem with this strategy is: If the network goes down when I am updating something = the Last Modified Date is not yet updated = next time I relaunch the app, I will have to go through the same thing again. Not to mention potential inconsistent data. If I use a temporary table for update and make the whole thing atomic, it would work, but then again, if the update is too long (lots of data change), the user has to wait a long time until new data is available. Should I use Last-Modified-Date for each of the data field and update data gradually?

  Read the article

• What information should a SVN/Versioned file commit comment contain?

  - by RenderIn

  I'm curious what kind of content should be in a versioned file commit comment. Should it describe generally what changed (e.g. "The widget screen was changed to display only active widgets") or should it be more specific (e.g. "A new condition was added to the where clause of the fetchWidget query to retrieve only active widgets by default") How atomic should a single commit be? Just the file containing the updated query in a single commit (e.g. "Updated the widget screen to display only active widgets by default"), or should that and several other changes + interface changes to a screen share the same commit with a more general description like ("Updated the widget screen: A) display only active widgets by default B) added button to toggle showing inactive widgets") I see subversion commit comments being used very differently and was wondering what others have had success with. Some comments are as brief as "updated files", while others are many paragraphs long, and others are formatted in a way that they can be queried and associated with some external system such as JIRA. I used to be extremely descriptive of the reason for the change as well as the specific technical changes. Lately I've been scaling back and just giving a general "This is what I changed on this page" kind of comment.

  Read the article

• volatile keyword seems to be useless?

  - by Finbarr

  import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch; import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger; public class Main implements Runnable { private final CountDownLatch cdl1 = new CountDownLatch(NUM_THREADS); private volatile int bar = 0; private AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0); private static final int NUM_THREADS = 25; public static void main(String[] args) { Main main = new Main(); for(int i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) new Thread(main).start(); } public void run() { int i = count.incrementAndGet(); cdl1.countDown(); try { cdl1.await(); } catch (InterruptedException e1) { e1.printStackTrace(); } bar = i; if(bar != i) System.out.println("Bar not equal to i"); else System.out.println("Bar equal to i"); } } Each Thread enters the run method and acquires a unique, thread confined, int variable i by getting a value from the AtomicInteger called count. Each Thread then awaits the CountDownLatch called cdl1 (when the last Thread reaches the latch, all Threads are released). When the latch is released each thread attempts to assign their confined i value to the shared, volatile, int called bar. I would expect every Thread except one to print out "Bar not equal to i", but every Thread prints "Bar equal to i". Eh, wtf does volatile actually do if not this?

  Read the article

• Theory: "Lexical Encoding"

  - by _ande_turner_

  I am using the term "Lexical Encoding" for my lack of a better one. A Word is arguably the fundamental unit of communication as opposed to a Letter. Unicode tries to assign a numeric value to each Letter of all known Alphabets. What is a Letter to one language, is a Glyph to another. Unicode 5.1 assigns more than 100,000 values to these Glyphs currently. Out of the approximately 180,000 Words being used in Modern English, it is said that with a vocabulary of about 2,000 Words, you should be able to converse in general terms. A "Lexical Encoding" would encode each Word not each Letter, and encapsulate them within a Sentence. // An simplified example of a "Lexical Encoding" String sentence = "How are you today?"; int[] sentence = { 93, 22, 14, 330, QUERY }; In this example each Token in the String was encoded as an Integer. The Encoding Scheme here simply assigned an int value based on generalised statistical ranking of word usage, and assigned a constant to the question mark. Ultimately, a Word has both a Spelling & Meaning though. Any "Lexical Encoding" would preserve the meaning and intent of the Sentence as a whole, and not be language specific. An English sentence would be encoded into "...language-neutral atomic elements of meaning ..." which could then be reconstituted into any language with a structured Syntactic Form and Grammatical Structure. What are other examples of "Lexical Encoding" techniques? If you were interested in where the word-usage statistics come from : http://www.wordcount.org

  Read the article

• Using SQL dB column as a lock for concurrent operations in Entity Framework

  - by Sid

  We have a long running user operation that is handled by a pool of worker processes. Data input and output is from Azure SQL. The master Azure SQL table structure columns are approximated to [UserId, col1, col2, ... , col N, beingProcessed, lastTimeProcessed ] beingProcessed is boolean and lastTimeProcessed is DateTime. The logic in every worker role is: public void WorkerRoleMain() { while(true) { try { dbContext db = new dbContext(); // Read foreach (UserProfile user in db.UserProfile .Where(u => DateTime.UtcNow.Subtract(u.lastTimeProcessed) > TimeSpan.FromHours(24) & u.beingProcessed == false)) { user.beingProcessed = true; // Modify db.SaveChanges(); // Write // Do some long drawn processing here ... ... ... user.lastTimeProcessed = DateTime.UtcNow; user.beingProcessed = false; db.SaveChanges(); } } catch(Exception ex) { LogException(ex); Sleep(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5)); } } // while () } With multiple workers processing as above (each with their own Entity Framework layer), in essence beingProcessed is being used a lock for MutEx purposes Question: How can I deal with concurrency issues on the beingProcessed "lock" itself based on the above load? I think read-modify-write operation on the beingProcessed needs to be atomic but I'm open to other strategies. Open to other code refinements too.

  Read the article

• Is Stream.Write thread-safe?

  - by Mike Spross

  I'm working on a client/server library for a legacy RPC implementation and was running into issues where the client would sometimes hang when waiting to a receive a response message to an RPC request message. It turns out the real problem was in my message framing code (I wasn't handling message boundaries correctly when reading data off the underlying NetworkStream), but it also made me suspicious of the code I was using to send data across the network, specifically in the case where the RPC server sends a large amount of data to a client as the result of a client RPC request. My send code uses a BinaryWriter to write a complete "message" to the underlying NetworkStream. The RPC protocol also implements a heartbeat algorithm, where the RPC server sends out PING messages every 15 seconds. The pings are sent out by a separate thread, so, at least in theory, a ping can be sent while the server is in the middle of streaming a large response back to a client. Suppose I have a Send method as follows, where stream is a NetworkStream: public void Send(Message message) { //Write the message to a temporary stream so we can send it all-at-once MemoryStream tempStream = new MemoryStream(); message.WriteToStream(tempStream); //Write the serialized message to the stream. //The BinaryWriter is a little redundant in this //simplified example, but here because //the production code uses it. byte[] data = tempStream.ToArray(); BinaryWriter bw = new BinaryWriter(stream); bw.Write(data, 0, data.Length); bw.Flush(); } So the question I have is, is the call to bw.Write (and by implication the call to the underlying Stream's Write method) atomic? That is, if a lengthy Write is still in progress on the sending thread, and the heartbeat thread kicks in and sends a PING message, will that thread block until the original Write call finishes, or do I have to add explicit synchronization to the Send method to prevent the two Send calls from clobbering the stream?

  Read the article

• How can the Three-Phase Commit Protocol (3PC) guarantee atomicity?

  - by AndiDog

  I'm currently exploring worst case scenarios of atomic commit protocols like 2PC and 3PC and am stuck at the point that I can't find out why 3PC can guarantee atomicity. That is, how does it guarantee that if cohort A commits, cohort B also commits? Here's the simplified 3PC from the Wikipedia article: Now let's assume the following case: Two cohorts participate in the transaction (A and B) Both do their work, then vote for commit Coordinator now sends precommit messages... A receives the precommit message, acknowledges, and then goes offline for a long time B doesn't receive the precommit message (whatever the reason might be) and is thus still in "uncertain" state The results: Coordinator aborts the transaction because not all precommit messages were sent and acknowledged successfully A, who is in precommit state, is still offline, thus times out and commits B aborts in any case: He either stays offline and times out (causes abort) or comes online and receives the abort command from the coordinator And there you have it: One cohort committed, another aborted. The transaction is screwed. So what am I missing here? In my understanding, if the automatic commit on timeout (in precommit state) was replaced by infinitely waiting for a coordinator command, that case should work fine.

  Read the article

• What is an efficient strategy for multiple threads posting jobs and waiting for response from a single thread?

  - by jakewins

  In java, what is an efficient solution to the following problem: I have multiple threads (10-20 or so) generating jobs ("Job Creators"), and a single thread capable of performing them ("The worker"). Once a job creator has posted a job, it should wait for the job to finish, yielding no result other than "it's done", before it keeps going. For sending the jobs to the worker thread, I think a ring buffer or similar standard fan-in setup would perhaps be a good approach? But for a Job Creator to find out that her job has been done, I'm not so sure.. The job creators could sleep, and the worker interrupt them when done.. Or each job creator could have an atomic boolean that it checks, and that the worker sets. I dunno, neither of those feel very nice. I'd like to do it with as few (none, if possible) locks as absolutely possible. So to be clear: What I'm looking for is speed, not necessarily simplicity. Does anyone have any suggestions? Links to reading about concurrency strategies would also be very welcome!

  Read the article

• c++ Design pattern for CoW, inherited classes, and variable shared data?

  - by krunk

  I've designed a copy-on-write base class. The class holds the default set of data needed by all children in a shared data model/CoW model. The derived classes also have data that only pertains to them, but should be CoW between other instances of that derived class. I'm looking for a clean way to implement this. If I had a base class FooInterface with shared data FooDataPrivate and a derived object FooDerived. I could create a FooDerivedDataPrivate. The underlying data structure would not effect the exposed getters/setters API, so it's not about how a user interfaces with the objects. I'm just wondering if this is a typical MO for such cases or if there's a better/cleaner way? What peeks my interest, is I see the potential of inheritance between the the private data classes. E.g. FooDerivedDataPrivate : public FooDataPrivate, but I'm not seeing a way to take advantage of that polymorphism in my derived classes. class FooDataPrivate { public: Ref ref; // atomic reference counting object int a; int b; int c; }; class FooInterface { public: // constructors and such // .... // methods are implemented to be copy on write. void setA(int val); void setB(int val); void setC(int val); // copy constructors, destructors, etc. all CoW friendly private: FooDataPrivate *data; }; class FooDerived : public FooInterface { public: FooDerived() : FooInterface() {} private: // need more shared data for FooDerived // this is the ???, how is this best done cleanly? };

  Read the article

• SQL problem - select accross multiple tables (user groups)

  - by morpheous

  I have a db schema which looks something like this: create table user (id int, name varchar(32)); create table group (id int, name varchar(32)); create table group_member (foobar_id int, user_id int, flag int); I want to write a query that allows me to so the following: Given a valid user id (UID), fetch the ids of all users that are in the same group as the specified user id (UID) AND have group_member.flag=3. Rather than just have the SQL. I want to learn how to think like a Db programmer. As a coder, SQL is my weakest link (since I am far more comfortable with imperative languages than declarative ones) - but I want to change that. Anyway here are the steps I have identified as necessary to break down the task. I would be grateful if some SQL guru can demonstrate the simple SQL statements - i.e. atomic SQL statements, one for each of the identified subtasks below, and then finally, how I can combine those statements to make the ONE statement that implements the required functionality. Here goes (assume specified user_id [UID] = 1): //Subtask #1. Fetch list of all groups of which I am a member Select group.id from user inner join group_member where user.id=group_member.user_id and user.id=1 //Subtask #2 Fetch a list of all members who are members of the groups I am a member of (i.e. groups in subtask #1) Not sure about this ... select user.id from user, group_member gm1, group_member gm2, ... [Stuck] //Subtask #3 Get list of users that satisfy criteria group_member.flag=3 Select user.id from user inner join group_member where user.id=group_member.user_id and user.id=1 and group_member.flag=3 Once I have the SQL for subtask2, I'd then like to see how the complete SQL statement is built from these subtasks (you dont have to use the SQL in the subtask, it just a way of explaining the steps involved - also, my SQL may be incorrect/inefficient, if so, please feel free to correct it, and point out what was wrong with it). Thanks

  Read the article

• Is there any point in using a volatile long?

  - by Adamski

  I occasionally use a volatile instance variable in cases where I have two threads reading from / writing to it and don't want the overhead (or potential deadlock risk) of taking out a lock; for example a timer thread periodically updating an int ID that is exposed as a getter on some class: public class MyClass { private volatile int id; public MyClass() { ScheduledExecutorService execService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1); execService.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() { public void run() { ++id; } }, 0L, 30L, TimeUnit.SECONDS); } public int getId() { return id; } } My question: Given that the JLS only guarantees that 32-bit reads will be atomic is there any point in ever using a volatile long? (i.e. 64-bit). Caveat: Please do not reply saying that using volatile over synchronized is a case of pre-optimisation; I am well aware of how / when to use synchronized but there are cases where volatile is preferable. For example, when defining a Spring bean for use in a single-threaded application I tend to favour volatile instance variables, as there is no guarantee that the Spring context will initialise each bean's properties in the main thread.

  Read the article

• Insert or Update using Oracle and PL/SQL

  - by Shane

  I have a PL/SQL function that performs an update/insert on an Oracle database that maintains a target total and returns the difference between the existing value and the new value. Here is the code I have so far: FUNCTION calcTargetTotal(accountId varchar2, newTotal numeric ) RETURN number is oldTotal numeric(20,6); difference numeric(20,6); begin difference := 0; begin select value into oldTotal from target_total WHERE account_id = accountId for update of value; if (oldTotal != newTotal) then update target_total set value = newTotal WHERE account_id = accountId difference := newTotal - oldTotal; end if; exception when NO_DATA_FOUND then begin difference := newTotal; insert into target_total ( account_id, value ) values ( accountId, newTotal ); -- sometimes a race condition occurs and this stmt fails -- in those cases try to update again exception when DUP_VAL_ON_INDEX then begin difference := 0; select value into oldTotal from target_total WHERE account_id = accountId for update of value; if (oldTotal != newTotal) then update target_total set value = newTotal WHERE account_id = accountId difference := newTotal - oldTotal; end if; end; end; end; return difference end calcTargetTotal; This works as expected in unit tests with multiple threads never failing. However when loaded on a live system we have seen this fail with a stack trace looking like this: ORA-01403: no data found ORA-00001: unique constraint () violated ORA-01403: no data found The line numbers (which I have removed since they are meaningless out of context) verify that the first update fails due to no data, the insert fail due to uniqueness, and the 2nd update is failing with no data, which should be impossible. From what I have read on other thread a MERGE statement is also not atomic and could suffer similar problems. Does anyone have any ideas how to prevent this from occurring?

  Read the article

• How can I find out if the MainActivity is being paused from my Java class?

  - by quinestor

  I am using motion sensor detection in my application. My design is this: a class gets the sensor services references from the main activity and then it implements SensorEventListener. That is, the MainActivity does not listen for sensor event changes: public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { // ... code mSensorManager = (SensorManager) getSystemService(Context.SENSOR_SERVICE); mAccelerometer = mSensorManager.getDefaultSensor(Sensor.TYPE_ACCELEROMETER); // The following is my java class, it does not extends any android fragment/activty mShakeUtil = new ShakeUtil(mSensorManager,mAccelerometer,this); // ..more code.. } I can't redesign ShakeUtil so it is a fragment nor activity, unfortunately. Now to illustrate the problem consider: MainActivity is on its way to be destroyed/paused. I.e screen rotation ShakeUtil's onSensorChanged(SensorEvent event) gets called in the process.. One of the things that happen inside onSensorChanged is a dialog interaction, which gives the error: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Can not perform this action after onSaveInstanceState When the previous happens between MainActivity's onSaveInstanceState and onPause. I know this can be prevented if I successfully detect that MainActivity is being pause in ShakeUtil. How can I detect that MainActivity is being paused or onSaveInstanceState was called from ShakeUtil? Alternatively, how can I avoid this issue without making Shakeutil extend activity? So far I have tried with flag variables but that isn't good enough, I guess these are not atomic operations. I tried using Activity's isChangingConfigurations(), but I get an undocummented "NoSuchMethodFound" error.. I am unregistering the sensors by calling ShakeUtil when onPause in main ACtivity

  Read the article

• Does Interlocked guarantee visibility to other threads in C# or do I still have to use volatile?

  - by Lirik

  I've been reading the answer to a similar question, but I'm still a little confused... Abel had a great answer, but this is the part that I'm unsure about: ...declaring a variable volatile makes it volatile for every single access. It is impossible to force this behavior any other way, hence volatile cannot be replaced with Interlocked. This is needed in scenarios where other libraries, interfaces or hardware can access your variable and update it anytime, or need the most recent version. Does Interlocked guarantee visibility of the atomic operation to all threads, or do I still have to use the volatile keyword on the value in order to guarantee visibility of the change? Here is my example: public class CountDownLatch { private volatile int m_remain; // <--- do I need the volatile keyword there since I'm using Interlocked? private EventWaitHandle m_event; public CountDownLatch (int count) { Reset(count); } public void Reset(int count) { if (count < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); m_remain = count; m_event = new ManualResetEvent(false); if (m_remain == 0) { m_event.Set(); } } public void Signal() { // The last thread to signal also sets the event. if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_remain) == 0) m_event.Set(); } public void Wait() { m_event.WaitOne(); } }

  Read the article

• Repository layout and sparse checkouts

  - by chuanose

  My team is considering to move from Clearcase to Subversion and we are thinking of organising the repository like this: \trunk\project1 \trunk\project2 \trunk\project3 \trunk\staticlib1 \trunk\staticlib2 \trunk\staticlib3 \branches\.. \tags\.. The issue here is that we have lots of projects (1000+) and each project is a dll that links in several common static libraries. Therefore checking out everything in trunk is a non-starter as it will take way too long (~2 GB), and is unwieldy for branching. Using svn:externals to pull out relevant folders for each project doesn't seem ideal because it results in several working copies for each static library folder. We also cannot do an atomic commit if the changes span the project and some static libraries. Sparse checkouts sounds very suitable for this as we can write a script to pull out only the required directories. However when we want to merge changes from a branch back to the trunk we will need to first check out a full trunk. Wonder if there is some advice on 1) a better repository organization or 2) a way to merge over branch changes to a trunk working copy that is sparse?

  Read the article

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

  - by Lirik

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

  Read the article

• TDD approach for complex function

  - by jamie

  I have a method in a class for which they are a few different outcomes (based upon event responses etc). But this is a single atomic function which is to used by other applications. I have broken down the main blocks of the functionality that comprise this function into different functions and successfully taken a Test Driven Development approach to the functionality of each of these elements. These elements however aren't exposed for other applications would use. And so my question is how can/should i easily approach a TDD style solution to verifying that the single method that should be called does function correctly without a lot of duplication in testing or lots of setup required for each test? I have considered / looked at moving the blocks of functionality into a different class and use Mocking to simulate the responses of the functions used but it doesn't feel right and the individual methods need to write to variables within the main class (it felt really heath robinson). The code roughly looks like this (i have removed a lot of parameters to make things clearer along with a fair bit of irrelevant code). public void MethodToTest(string parameter) { IResponse x = null; if (function1(parameter)) { if (!function2(parameter,out x)) { function3(parameter, out x); } } // ... // more bits of code here // ... if (x != null) { x.Success(); } }

  Read the article

• XSL(like) declarative language as MVC view over strongtyped model?

  - by Martin Kool

  As a huge XSL fan, I am very happy to use xsl as the view in our proprietary MVC framework on ASP.NET. Objects in the model are serialized under the hood using .NET's xml serializer, and we use quite atomic xsl templates to declare how each object or property should transform. For example: <xsl:template match="/Article"> <html> <body> <div class="article"> <xsl:apply-templates /> </div> </body> </html> </xsl:template> <xsl:template match="Article/Title"> <h1> <xsl:apply-templates /> </h1> </xsl:template> <xsl:template match="@*|text()"> <xsl:copy /> </xsl:template> This mechanism allows us to quickly override default matching templates, like having a template matching on the last item in a list, or the selected one, etc. Also, xsl extension objects in .NET allow us just the bit of extra grip that we need. Common shared templates can be split up and included. However Even though I can ignore the verbosity downside of xsl (because Visual Studio schema intellisense + snippets really is slick, praise to the VS-team), the downside of not having intellisense over strongtyped objects in the model is really something that's bugging me. I've seen ASP.NET MVC + user controls in action and really starting to love it, but I wonder; Is there a way of getting some sort of intellisense over XML that we're iterating over, or do you know of a language that offers the freedom and declarativeness of XSL but has the strongtype/intellisense benefits of say webforms/usercontrols/asp.net.mvc-view? (I probably know the answer: "no", and I'll find myself using Phil Haack's utterly cool mvc shizzle soon...)

  Read the article

• How to avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task without blocking?

  - by Diego V

  I want to efficiently avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task in a heavily multi-threaded environment without making threads wait for a lock when another thread is already running the task. Instead, in that scenario, I want them to gracefully fail (i.e. skip its attempt to execute the task) as fast as possible. To illustrate the idea considerer this unsafe (has race condition!) code: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } I though about using a variation of Double-Checked Locking (consider that running is a primitive 32-bit field, hence atomic, it could work fine even for Java below 5 without the need of volatile). It could look like this: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing synchronized (ThisClass.class) { if (running) return; running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } } Maybe I should also use a local copy of the field as well (not sure now, please tell me). But then I realized that anyway I will end with an inner synchronization block, that still could hold a thread with the right timing at monitor entrance until the original executor leaves the critical section (I know the odds usually are minimal but in this case we are thinking in several threads competing for this long-running resource). So, could you think in a better approach?

  Read the article

• Application crash

  - by Ovi

  I have an application that, as any other app, crashes once in a while for various reasons. When it crashes, it does it gracefully and the users get a nice message of the crash. At the same time the crash is reported on the server for analysis so it can be fixed in future versions. However, I would like that the app keeps working through the crash. What that means is that I would like to run the forms in an 'atomic' way. If it goes down, it doesn't take down the entire app. The users should just need to start over the work done with the particular form. Is this something that can be done through architecture? Or maybe the new framework versions has something to aid this? The application is build mostly in C# over the 3.5 framework, but it also uses some external references, some COMs and web service references. I am not interested in an answer: 'well fix the crashes'. Me and my team and the testing team are working round the clock for this.

  Read the article

• Ruby on Rails: temporarily update an attribute into cache without saving it?

  - by randombits

  I have a bit of code that depicts this hypothetical setup below. A class Foo which contains many Bars. Bar belongs to one and only one Foo. At some point, Foo can do a finite loop that lapses 2+ iterations. In that loop, something like the following happens: bar = Bar.find_where_in_use_is_zero bar.in_use = 1 Basically what find_where_in_use_is_zero does something like this in as far as SQL goes: SELECT * from bars WHERE in_use = 0 Now the problem I'm facing is that I cannot run the following line of code after bar.in_use =1 is invoked: bar.save The reason is clear, I'm still looping and the new Foo hasn't been created, so we don't have a foo_id to put into bars.foo_id. Even if I set to allow foo_id to be NULL, we have a problem where one of the bars can fail validation and the existing one was saved to the database. In my application, that doesn't work. The entire request is atomic, either all succeeds or fails together. What happens next, is that in my loop, I have the potential to select the same exact bar that I did on a previous iteration of the loop since the in_use flag will not be set to 1 until @foo.save is called. Is there anyway to work around this condition and temporarily set the in_use attribute to 1 for subsequent iterations of the loop so that I retrieve an available bar instance?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >