Search Results

Search found 8166 results on 327 pages for 'thread syncronization'.

Page 15/327 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Thread Local Storage and local method variables

    - by miguel
    In c#, each thread has its own stack space. If this is the case, why is the following code not thread-safe? (It is stated that this code is thread-safe on this post: Locking in C# class Foo { private int count = 0; public void TrySomething() { count++; } } As count is an int (stack variable), surely this value would be isolated to an individual thread, on its own stack, and therefore thread-safe? I am probably missing something here, but I dont understand what is actually in Thread Local Storage if not stack-based variables for the thread?

    Read the article

  • How to correctly stop thread which is using Control.Invoke

    - by codymanix
    I tried the following (pseudocode) but I always get a deadlock when Iam trying to stop my thread. The problem is that Join() waits for the thread to complete and a pending Invoke() operation is also waiting to complete. How can I solve this? Thread workerThread = new Thread(BackupThreadRunner); volatile bool cancel; // this is the thread worker routine void BackupThreadRunner() { while (!cancel) { DoStuff(); ReportProgress(); } } // main thread void ReportProgress() { if (InvokeRequired) { Invoke(ReportProgress); } UpdateStatusBarAndStuff(); } // main thread void DoCancel() { cancel=true; workerThread.Join(); }

    Read the article

  • Java: serial thread confinement question

    - by denis
    Assume you have a Collection(ConcurrentLinkedQueue) of Runnables with mutable state. Thread A iterates over the Collection and hands the Runnables to an ExecutorService. The run() method changes the Runnables state. The Runnable has no internal synchronization. The above is a repetitive action and the worker threads need to see the changes made by previous iterations. So a Runnable gets processed by one worker thread after another, but is never accessed by more than one thread at a time - a case of serial thread confinement(i hope ;)). The question: Will it work just with the internal synchronization of the ConcurrentLinkedQueue/ExecutorSerivce? To be more precise: If Thread A hands Runnable R to worker thread B and B changes the state of R, and then A hands R to worker thread C..does C see the modifications done by B?

    Read the article

  • c style thread creation in python

    - by chandank
    Hi I am new to python and want to create multiple threads in a loop something like (in C style) for (;i < 10; i++) thread[i]= pthread_create(&thread[i],&attr,func) I am not sure how to do the same in python? Basically I want have that thread[] variable as global will create all thread at once and then will start then in once. I have written a similar python program that does it but I think having it in above style will be better. def thread_create(thread_number): command_string = "Thread-" + "%d" %thread_number thread = myThread(thread_number, command_string) thread.start() # Start new Threads for i in range(5): thread_create(i)

    Read the article

  • Java Thread Message Passing

    - by pkulak
    I'm writing an Android app. I have a main method, which creates and runs a new Thread using an anonymous inner Runnable class. The run() method, when it's done, calls a method on it's parent class (in the main thread) that calls notifyDataSetChanged() so that the main thread can redraw the new data. This is causing all kinds of trouble (ViewRoot$CalledFromWrongThreadException). The thing is, this method being called from the worker thread is on the class that's created in the UI thread. Shouldn't that be running on the UI thread? Or am I missing something? Here's some code about what I'm talking about: public class Mealfire extends Activity { @Override public void onCreate(Bundle icicle) { (new Thread() { public void run() { // Do a bunch of slow network stuff. update(); } }).start(); } private void update() { myAdapter.notifyDatasetChanged(); } }

    Read the article

  • Turn based synchronization between threads

    - by Amarus
    I'm trying to find a way to synchronize multiple threads having the following conditions: * There are two types of threads: 1. A single "cyclic" thread executing an infinite loop to do cyclic calculations 2. Multiple short-lived threads not started by the main thread * The cyclic thread has a sleep duration between each cycle/loop iteration * The other threads are allowed execute during the inter-cycle sleep of the cyclic thread: - Any other thread that attempts to execute during an active cycle should be blocked - The cyclic thread will wait until all other threads that are already executing to be finished Here's a basic example of what I was thinking of doing: // Somewhere in the code: ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(true); // Allow Externally call CountdownEvent countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(1); // Can't AddCount a CountdownEvent with CurrentCount = 0 void ExternallyCalled() { manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); // Wait until CyclicCalculations is having its beauty sleep countdownEvent.AddCount(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that it should wait for this method call to finish before starting the next cycle Thread.Sleep(1000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic countdownEvent.Signal(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that this call is finished } void CyclicCalculations() { while (!stopCyclicCalculations) { manualResetEvent.Reset(); // Block all incoming calls to ExternallyCalled from this point forward countdownEvent.Signal(); // Dirty workaround for the issue with AddCount and CurrentCount = 0 countdownEvent.Wait(); // Wait until all of the already executing calls to ExternallyCalled are finished countdownEvent.Reset(); // Reset the CountdownEvent for next cycle. Thread.Sleep(2000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic manualResetEvent.Set(); // Unblock all threads executing ExternallyCalled Thread.Sleep(1000); // Inter-cycles delay } } Obviously, this doesn't work. There's no guarantee that there won't be any threads executing ExternallyCalled that are in between manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); and countdownEvent.AddCount(); at the time the main thread gets released by the CountdownEvent. I can't figure out a simple way of doing what I'm after, and almost everything that I've found after a lengthy search is related to producer/consumer synchronization which I can't apply here.

    Read the article

  • Does SetThreadPriority cause thread reschedulling?

    - by Suma
    Consider following situation, assuming single CPU system: thread A is running with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL, signals event E thread B with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_LOWEST is waiting for an event E (Note: at this point the thread is not scheduled because it is runnable, but A is higher priority and runnable as well) thread A calls SetThreadPriority(B, THREAD_PRIORITY_ABOVE_NORMAL) Is thread B re-scheduled immediately to run, or is thread A allowed to continue until current time-slice is over, and B is scheduled only once a new time-slice has begun? I would be interested to know the answer for WinXP, Vista and Win7, if possible. Note: the scenario above is simplified from my real world code, where multiple threads are running on multiple cores, but the main object of the question stays: does SetThreadPriority cause thread scheduling to happen?

    Read the article

  • Call an AsyncTask inside a Thread

    - by Arun
    I am working in an android application and I want to call an AsyncTask from my UI main thread. For that I want to call my AsyncTask from a thread. This is the method that I call from my main UI thread. This is working correctly CommonAysnk mobjCommonAysnk = new CommonAysnk(this, 1); mobjCommonAysnk.execute(); CommonAysnk is my AsyncTask class.I want to pass my activity and an integer parameter to the AsyncTask constructor. How can I call this from a thread as shown below method. Thread t = new Thread() { public void run() { try { CommonAysnk mobjCommonAysnk = new CommonAysnk(this, 1); mobjCommonAysnk.execute(); } catch (Exception ex) { }}}; t.start(); When I tried to call it from a Thread and I am not able to pass the activity parameter correctly. How can we sole this. Thanks

    Read the article

  • C++ Simple thread with parameter (no .net)

    - by Marc Vollmer
    I've searched the internet for a while now and found different solutions but then all don't really work or are to complicated for my use. I used C++ until 2 years ago so it might be a bit rusty :D I'm currently writing a program that posts data to an URL. It only posts the data nothing else. For posting the data I use curl, but it blocks the main thread and while the first post is still running there will be a second post that should start. In the end there are about 5-6 post operations running at the same time. Now I want to push the posting with curl into another thread. One thread per post. The thread should get a string parameter with the content what to push. I'm currently stuck on this. Tried the WINAPI for windows but that crashes on reading the parameter. (the second thread is still running in my example while the main thread ended (waiting on system("pause")). It would be nice to have a multi plattform solution, because it will run under windows and linux! Heres my current code: #define CURL_STATICLIB #include <curl/curl.h> #include <curl/easy.h> #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string> #if defined(WIN32) #include <windows.h> #else //#include <pthread.h> #endif using namespace std; void post(string post) { // Function to post it to url CURL *curl; // curl object CURLcode res; // CURLcode object curl = curl_easy_init(); // init curl if(curl) { // is curl init curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_URL, "http://10.8.27.101/api.aspx"); // set url string data = "api=" + post; // concat post data strings curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, data.c_str()); // post data res = curl_easy_perform(curl); // execute curl_easy_cleanup(curl); // cleanup } else { cerr << "Failed to create curl handle!\n"; } } #if defined(WIN32) DWORD WINAPI thread(LPVOID data) { // WINAPI Thread string pData = *((string*)data); // convert LPVOID to string [THIS FAILES] post(pData); // post it with curl } #else // Linux version #endif void startThread(string data) { // FUnction to start the thread string pData = data; // some Test #if defined(WIN32) CreateThread(NULL, 0, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)thread, &pData, 0, NULL); // Start a Windows thread with winapi #else // Linux version #endif } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { // The post data to send string postData = "test1234567890"; startThread(postData); // Start the thread system("PAUSE"); // Dont close the console window return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Has anyone a suggestion? Thanks for the help!

    Read the article

  • gdb - thread log

    - by sthustfo
    Hi all, While I trying to debug a 'C' program with gdb, I always get the following continuously on the gdb console. [Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30576) exited] [New Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30577)] [Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30577) exited] [New Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30578)] [Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30578) exited] Is there any reason why this is printed? And anyway to block this? note: the program makes use of timers. Is that a possible cause?

    Read the article

  • How to catch exception in the main thread if the exception occurs in the secondary thread?

    - by Ashish Ashu
    How to catch exception in the main thread if the exception occurs in the secondary thread? The code snippet for the scenario is given below: private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { Thread th1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Test)); th1.Start(); } catch (Exception) { } } void Test() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { Thread.Sleep(100); if (i == 2) throw new MyException(); } } }

    Read the article

  • C#. How to terminate a thread which has spawned another thread which is sleeping?

    - by Bobb
    I have a long running thread made from Thread.Start(). It spawns a background thread using QueueUserWorkItem which sleeps most of the time. Then the class-owner get disposed I call thread1.Join() but naturally it doesnt return because its child background thread is sleeping. What would be the right solution to gracefully terminate a thread which has other threads with little hassle? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to terminate a thread which has spawned another thread which is sleeping?

    - by Bobb
    I have a long running thread made from Thread.Start(). It spawns a background thread using QueueUserWorkItem which sleeps most of the time. Then the class-owner get disposed I call thread1.Join() but naturally it doesnt return because its child background thread is sleeping. What would be the right solution to gracefully terminate a thread which has other threads with little hassle?

    Read the article

  • multi-thread access MySQL error

    - by user188916
    I have written a simple multi-threaded C program to access MySQL,it works fine except when i add usleep() or sleep() function in each thread function. i created two pthreads in the main method, int main(){ mysql_library_init(0,NULL,NULL); printf("Hello world!\n"); init_pool(&p,100); pthread_t producer; pthread_t consumer_1; pthread_t consumer_2; pthread_create(&producer,NULL,produce_fun,NULL); pthread_create(&consumer_1,NULL,consume_fun,NULL); pthread_create(&consumer_2,NULL,consume_fun,NULL); mysql_library_end(); } void * produce_fun(void *arg){ pthread_detach(pthread_self()); //procedure while(1){ usleep(500000); printf("producer...\n"); produce(&p,cnt++); } pthread_exit(NULL); } void * consume_fun(void *arg){ pthread_detach(pthread_self()); MYSQL db; MYSQL *ptr_db=mysql_init(&db); mysql_real_connect(); //procedure while(1){ usleep(1000000); printf("consumer..."); int item=consume(&p); addRecord_d(ptr_db,"test",item); } mysql_thread_end(); pthread_exit(NULL); } void addRecord_d(MYSQL *ptr_db,const char *t_name,int item){ char query_buffer[100]; sprintf(query_buffer,"insert into %s values(0,%d)",t_name,item); //pthread_mutex_lock(&db_t_lock); int ret=mysql_query(ptr_db,query_buffer); if(ret){ fprintf(stderr,"%s%s\n","cannot add record to ",t_name); return; } unsigned long long update_id=mysql_insert_id(ptr_db); // pthread_mutex_unlock(&db_t_lock); printf("add record (%llu,%d) ok.",update_id,item); } the program output errors like: [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread 0xb7ae3b70 (LWP 7712)] Hello world! [New Thread 0xb72d6b70 (LWP 7713)] [New Thread 0xb6ad5b70 (LWP 7714)] [New Thread 0xb62d4b70 (LWP 7715)] [Thread 0xb7ae3b70 (LWP 7712) exited] producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31441,0) ok.add record (31442,1) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31443,2) ok.add record (31444,3) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31445,4) ok.add record (31446,5) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31447,6) ok.add record (31448,7) ok.producer... Error in my_thread_global_end(): 2 threads didn't exit [Thread 0xb72d6b70 (LWP 7713) exited] [Thread 0xb6ad5b70 (LWP 7714) exited] [Thread 0xb62d4b70 (LWP 7715) exited] Program exited normally. and when i add pthread_mutex_lock in function addRecord_d,the error still exists. So what exactly the problem is?

    Read the article

  • C# - periodic data reading and Thread.Sleep()

    - by CaldonCZE
    Hello, my C# application reads data from special USB device. The data are read as so-called "messages", each of them having 24 bytes. The amount of messages that must be read per second may differ (maximal frequency is quite high, about 700 messages per second), but the application must read them all. The only way to read the messages is by calling function "ReadMessage", that returns one message read from the device. The function is from external DLL and I cannot modify it. My solution: I've got a seperate thread, that is running all the time during the program run and it's only job is to read the messages in cycle. The received messages are then processed in main application thread. The function executed in the "reading thread" is the following: private void ReadingThreadFunction() { int cycleCount; try { while (this.keepReceivingMessages) { cycleCount++; TRxMsg receivedMessage; ReadMessage(devHandle, out receivedMessage); //...do something with the message... } } catch { //... catch exception if reading failed... } } This solution works fine and all messages are correctly received. However, the application consumes too much resources, the CPU of my computer runs at more than 80%. Therefore I'd like to reduce it. Thanks to the "cycleCount" variable I know that the "cycling speed" of the thread is about 40 000 cycles per second. This is unnecessarily too much, since I need to receive maximum 700 messagges/sec. (and the device has buffer for about 100 messages, so the cycle speed can be even a little lower) I tried to reduce the cycle speed by suspending the thread for 1 ms by Thread.Sleep(1); command. Of course, this didn't work and the cycle speed became about 70 cycles/second which was not enough to read all messages. I know that this attempt was silly, that putting the thread to sleep and then waking him up takes much longer than 1 ms. However, I don't know what else to do: Is there some other way how to slow the thread execution down (to reduce CPU consumption) other than Thread.Sleep? Or am I completely wrong and should I use something different for this task instead of Thread, maybe Threading.Timer or ThreadPool? Thanks a lot in advance for all suggestions. This is my first question here and I'm a beginner at using threads, so please excuse me if it's not clear enough.

    Read the article

  • How to get thread status..in Multi threading..

    - by Qutbuddin Kamaal
    Hi, May be it sound dumb but if I want some computed value from other thread and other value from one more thread and this two value in my main thread how can I,if In case second thread completed before first one.it will create problem..so I just want is there any way that I can get the thread status means its still running or stop. Thanks

    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

  • What happens at control invoke function?

    - by user65909
    A question about form controls invoke function. Control1 is created on thread1. If you want to update something in Control1 from thread2 you must do something like: delegate void SetTextCallback(string txt); void setText(string txt) { if (this.textBox1.InvokeRequired) { SetTextCallback d = new SetTextCallback(setText); this.Invoke(d, new object[] { txt }); } else { // this will run on thread1 even when called from thread2 this.textBox1.AppendText(msg); } }` What happens behind the scenes here? This invoke behaves different from a normal object invoke. When you want to call a function in an object on a specific thread, then that thread must be waiting on some queue of delegates, and execute the incoming delegates. Is it correct that the windows forms control invoke function is completely different from the standard object invoke function?

    Read the article

  • Optimizing a thread safe Java NIO / Serialization / FIFO Queue [migrated]

    - by trialcodr
    I've written a thread safe, persistent FIFO for Serializable items. The reason for reinventing the wheel is that we simply can't afford any third party dependencies in this project and want to keep this really simple. The problem is it isn't fast enough. Most of it is undoubtedly due to reading and writing directly to disk but I think we should be able to squeeze a bit more out of it anyway. Any ideas on how to improve the performance of the 'take'- and 'add'-methods? /** * <code>DiskQueue</code> Persistent, thread safe FIFO queue for * <code>Serializable</code> items. */ public class DiskQueue<ItemT extends Serializable> { public static final int EMPTY_OFFS = -1; public static final int LONG_SIZE = 8; public static final int HEADER_SIZE = LONG_SIZE * 2; private InputStream inputStream; private OutputStream outputStream; private RandomAccessFile file; private FileChannel channel; private long offs = EMPTY_OFFS; private long size = 0; public DiskQueue(String filename) { try { boolean fileExists = new File(filename).exists(); file = new RandomAccessFile(filename, "rwd"); if (fileExists) { size = file.readLong(); offs = file.readLong(); } else { file.writeLong(size); file.writeLong(offs); } } catch (FileNotFoundException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } channel = file.getChannel(); inputStream = Channels.newInputStream(channel); outputStream = Channels.newOutputStream(channel); } /** * Add item to end of queue. */ public void add(ItemT item) { try { synchronized (this) { channel.position(channel.size()); ObjectOutputStream s = new ObjectOutputStream(outputStream); s.writeObject(item); s.flush(); size++; file.seek(0); file.writeLong(size); if (offs == EMPTY_OFFS) { offs = HEADER_SIZE; file.writeLong(offs); } notify(); } } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } } /** * Clears overhead by moving the remaining items up and shortening the file. */ public synchronized void defrag() { if (offs > HEADER_SIZE && size > 0) { try { long totalBytes = channel.size() - offs; ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.allocateDirect((int) totalBytes); channel.position(offs); for (int bytes = 0; bytes < totalBytes;) { int res = channel.read(buffer); if (res == -1) { throw new IOException("Failed to read data into buffer"); } bytes += res; } channel.position(HEADER_SIZE); buffer.flip(); for (int bytes = 0; bytes < totalBytes;) { int res = channel.write(buffer); if (res == -1) { throw new IOException("Failed to write buffer to file"); } bytes += res; } offs = HEADER_SIZE; file.seek(LONG_SIZE); file.writeLong(offs); file.setLength(HEADER_SIZE + totalBytes); } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } } } /** * Returns the queue overhead in bytes. */ public synchronized long overhead() { return (offs == EMPTY_OFFS) ? 0 : offs - HEADER_SIZE; } /** * Returns the first item in the queue, blocks if queue is empty. */ public ItemT peek() throws InterruptedException { block(); synchronized (this) { if (offs != EMPTY_OFFS) { return readItem(); } } return peek(); } /** * Returns the number of remaining items in queue. */ public synchronized long size() { return size; } /** * Removes and returns the first item in the queue, blocks if queue is empty. */ public ItemT take() throws InterruptedException { block(); try { synchronized (this) { if (offs != EMPTY_OFFS) { ItemT result = readItem(); size--; offs = channel.position(); file.seek(0); if (offs == channel.size()) { truncate(); } file.writeLong(size); file.writeLong(offs); return result; } } return take(); } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } } /** * Throw away all items and reset the file. */ public synchronized void truncate() { try { offs = EMPTY_OFFS; file.setLength(HEADER_SIZE); size = 0; } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } } /** * Block until an item is available. */ protected void block() throws InterruptedException { while (offs == EMPTY_OFFS) { try { synchronized (this) { wait(); file.seek(LONG_SIZE); offs = file.readLong(); } } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } } } /** * Read and return item. */ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") protected ItemT readItem() { try { channel.position(offs); return (ItemT) new ObjectInputStream(inputStream).readObject(); } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } } }

    Read the article

  • Boost Thread Synchronization

    - by Dave18
    I don't see synchronized output when i comment the the line wait(1) in thread(). can I make them run at the same time (one after another) without having to use 'wait(1)'? #include <boost/thread.hpp> #include <iostream> void wait(int seconds) { boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::seconds(seconds)); } boost::mutex mutex; void thread() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { wait(1); mutex.lock(); std::cout << "Thread " << boost::this_thread::get_id() << ": " << i << std::endl; mutex.unlock(); } } int main() { boost::thread t1(thread); boost::thread t2(thread); t1.join(); t2.join(); }

    Read the article

  • WinForms - How do I access/call methods in UI thread from a separate thread without passing a delega

    - by Greg
    Hi, QUESTION: In .NET 3.5 WinForms apps, how do I access/call methods in UI thread from a separate thread, without passing a delegate? EXAMPLE: Say I have some code I want to run both (a) manually when the user clicks a button, and (b) periodically called by a process which is running in a separate non-mainUI thread but without passing a delegate. [Simplistically I'm thinking that the class that has this method is already been constructed, and the main UI thread has a handle to it, therefore if the process running in the separate thread could just get a handle to it from the main-UI thread it could call it. Hopefully this is not a flawed concept] BACKGROUND: I'm actually after a way to do the above for the case where my separate process thread is actually a job I schedule using quartz.net. The way the scheduler works I can't seem to actually pass in a delegate. There is a way to pass JobDetails, however it only seems to caters for things like string, int, etc. Hence what I'm after is a way to access the MainForm class for example, to call a method on it, from within the quartz.net job which runs in a separate thread. Thanks

    Read the article

  • .NET Thread.Abort again

    - by hoodoos
    Again I want to talk about safety of the Thread.Abort function. I was interested to have some way to abort operations which I can't control really and don't want actually, but I want to have my threads free as soon as possible to prevent thread thirsty of my application. So I wrote some test code to see if it's possible to use Thread.Abort and have the aborting thread clean up resources propertly. Here's code: int threadRunCount = 0; int threadAbortCount = 0; int threadFinallyCount = 0; int iterations = 0; while( true ) { Thread t = new Thread( () => { threadRunCount++; try { Thread.Sleep( Random.Next( 45, 55 ) ); } catch( ThreadAbortException ) { threadAbortCount++; } finally { threadFinallyCount++; } } ); t.Start(); Thread.Sleep( 45 ); t.Abort(); iterations++; } So, so far this code worked for about 5 mins, and threadRunCount was always equal to threadFinally and threadAbort was somewhat lower in number, because some threads completed with no abort or probably got aborted in finally. So the question is, do I miss something?

    Read the article

  • How do you pass a BitmapImage from a background thread to the UI thread in WPF?

    - by DanM
    I have a background thread that generates a series of BitmapImage objects. Each time the background thread finishes generating a bitmap, I would like to show this bitmap to the user. The problem is figuring out how to pass the BitmapImage from the background thread to the UI thread. This is an MVVM project, so my view has an Image element: <Image Source="{Binding GeneratedImage}" /> My view-model has a property GeneratedImage: private BitmapImage _generatedImage; public BitmapImage GeneratedImage { get { return _generatedImage; } set { if (value == _generatedImage) return; _generatedImage= value; RaisePropertyChanged("GeneratedImage"); } } My view-model also has the code that creates the background thread: public void InitiateGenerateImages(List<Coordinate> coordinates) { ThreadStart generatorThreadStarter = delegate { GenerateImages(coordinates); }; var generatorThread = new Thread(generatorThreadStarter); generatorThread.ApartmentState = ApartmentState.STA; generatorThread.IsBackground = true; generatorThread.Start(); } private void GenerateImages(List<Coordinate> coordinates) { foreach (var coordinate in coordinates) { var backgroundThreadImage = GenerateImage(coordinate); // I'm stuck here...how do I pass this to the UI thread? } } I'd like to somehow pass backgroundThreadImage to the UI thread, where it will become uiThreadImage, then set GeneratedImage = uiThreadImage so the view can update. I've looked at some examples dealing with the WPF Dispatcher, but I can't seem to come up with an example that addresses this issue. Please advise.

    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

  • What is difference between Thread Affinity and Process affinity ?

    - by DotNetBeginner
    What is difference between Thread Affinity and Process affinity ? If I have two Threads and I have duel core machine then is it possible to run these two threads parallely on the two cores ? If I use processor affinity Mask then I can control execution of a process on the cores but when I have to run threads on a particular core how can I make these threads core specific ? A very simple example will be appreciated.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >