Search Results

Search found 1356 results on 55 pages for 'asynchronous challenged'.

Page 17/55 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Some Async Socket Code - Help with Garbage Collection?

    - by divinci
    Hi all, I think this question is really about my understanding of Garbage collection and variable references. But I will go ahead and throw out some code for you to look at. // Please note do not use this code for async sockets, just to highlight my question // SocketTransport // This is a simple wrapper class that is used as the 'state' object // when performing Async Socket Reads/Writes public class SocketTransport { public Socket Socket; public byte[] Buffer; public SocketTransport(Socket socket, byte[] buffer) { this.Socket = socket; this.Buffer = buffer; } } // Entry point - creates a SocketTransport, then passes it as the state // object when Asyncly reading from the socket. public void ReadOne(Socket socket) { SocketTransport socketTransport_One = new SocketTransport(socket, new byte[10]); socketTransport_One.Socket.BeginRecieve ( socketTransport_One.Buffer, // Buffer to store data 0, // Buffer offset 10, // Read Length SocketFlags.None // SocketFlags new AsyncCallback(OnReadOne), // Callback when BeginRead completes socketTransport_One // 'state' object to pass to Callback. ); } public void OnReadOne(IAsyncResult ar) { SocketTransport socketTransport_One = ar.asyncState as SocketTransport; ProcessReadOneBuffer(socketTransport_One.Buffer); // Do processing // New Read // Create another! SocketTransport (what happens to first one?) SocketTransport socketTransport_Two = new SocketTransport(socket, new byte[10]); socketTransport_Two.Socket.BeginRecieve ( socketTransport_One.Buffer, 0, 10, SocketFlags.None new AsyncCallback(OnReadTwo), socketTransport_Two ); } public void OnReadTwo(IAsyncResult ar) { SocketTransport socketTransport_Two = ar.asyncState as SocketTransport; .............. So my question is: The first SocketTransport to be created (socketTransport_One) has a strong reference to a Socket object (lets call is ~SocketA~). Once the async read is completed, a new SocketTransport object is created (socketTransport_Two) also with a strong reference to ~SocketA~. Q1. Will socketTransport_One be collected by the garbage collector when method OnReadOne exits? Even though it still contains a strong reference to ~SocketA~ Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • Silverlight Async Design Pattern Issue

    - by Mike Mengell
    I'm in the middle of a Silverlight application and I have a function which needs to call a webservice and using the result complete the rest of the function. My issue is that I would have normally done a synchronous web service call got the result and using that carried on with the function. As Silverlight doesn't support synchronous web service calls without additional custom classes to mimic it, I figure it would be best to go with the flow of async rather than fight it. So my question relates around whats the best design pattern for working with async calls in program flow. In the following example I want to use the myFunction TypeId parameter depending on the return value of the web service call. But I don't want to call the web service until this function is called. How can I alter my code design to allow for the async call? string _myPath; bool myFunction(Guid TypeId) { WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient proxy = new WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient(); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted += new System.EventHandler<WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted>(proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdAsync(TypeId); // Get return value if (myPath == "\\Server1") { //Use the TypeId parameter in here } } void proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted(object sender, WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompletedEventArgs e) { string server = e.Result.Server; myPath = '\\' + server; } Thanks in advance, Mike

    Read the article

  • Implementing a robust async stream reader for a console

    - by Jon
    I recently provided an answer to this question: C# - Realtime console output redirection. As often happens, explaining stuff (here "stuff" was how I tackled a similar problem) leads you to greater understanding and/or, as is the case here, "oops" moments. I realized that my solution, as implemented, has a bug. The bug has little practical importance, but it has an extremely large importance to me as a developer: I can't rest easy knowing that my code has the potential to blow up. Squashing the bug is the purpose of this question. I apologize for the long intro, so let's get dirty. I wanted to build a class that allows me to receive input from a Stream in an event-based manner. The stream, in my scenario, is guaranteed to be a FileStream and there is also an associated StreamReader already present to leverage. The public interface of the class is this: public class MyStreamManager { public event EventHandler<ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs> StandardOutputRead; public void StartSendingEvents(); public void StopSendingEvents(); } Obviously this specific scenario has to do with a console's standard output. StartSendingEvents and StopSendingEvents do what they advertise; for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that events are always being sent without loss of generality. The class uses these two fields internally: protected readonly StringBuilder inputAccumulator = new StringBuilder(); protected readonly byte[] buffer = new byte[256]; The functionality of the class is implemented in the methods below. To get the ball rolling: public void StartSendingEvents(); { this.stopAutomation = false; this.BeginReadAsync(); } To read data out of the Stream without blocking, and also without requiring a carriage return char, BeginRead is called: protected void BeginReadAsync() { if (!this.stopAutomation) { this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.BeginRead( this.buffer, 0, this.buffer.Length, this.ReadHappened, null); } } The challenging part: BeginRead requires using a buffer. This means that when reading from the stream, it is possible that the bytes available to read ("incoming chunk") are larger than the buffer. Since we are only handing off data from the stream to a consumer, and that consumer may well have inside knowledge about the size and/or format of these chunks, I want to call event subscribers exactly once for each chunk. Otherwise the abstraction breaks down and the subscribers have to buffer the incoming data and reconstruct the chunks themselves using said knowledge. This is much less convenient to the calling code, and detracts from the usefulness of my class. Edit: There are comments below correctly stating that since the data is coming from a stream, there is absolutely nothing that the receiver can infer about the structure of the data unless it is fully prepared to parse it. What I am trying to do here is leverage the "flush the output" "structure" that the owner of the console imparts while writing on it. I am prepared to assume (better: allow my caller to have the option to assume) that the OS will pass me the data written between two flushes of the stream in exactly one piece. To this end, if the buffer is full after EndRead, we don't send its contents to subscribers immediately but instead append them to a StringBuilder. The contents of the StringBuilder are only sent back whenever there is no more to read from the stream (thus preserving the chunks). private void ReadHappened(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { var bytesRead = this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.EndRead(asyncResult); if (bytesRead == 0) { this.OnAutomationStopped(); return; } var input = this.StandardOutput.CurrentEncoding.GetString( this.buffer, 0, bytesRead); this.inputAccumulator.Append(input); if (bytesRead < this.buffer.Length) { this.OnInputRead(); // only send back if we 're sure we got it all } this.BeginReadAsync(); // continue "looping" with BeginRead } After any read which is not enough to fill the buffer, all accumulated data is sent to the subscribers: private void OnInputRead() { var handler = this.StandardOutputRead; if (handler == null) { return; } handler(this, new ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs(this.inputAccumulator.ToString())); this.inputAccumulator.Clear(); } (I know that as long as there are no subscribers the data gets accumulated forever. This is a deliberate decision). The good This scheme works almost perfectly: Async functionality without spawning any threads Very convenient to the calling code (just subscribe to an event) Maintains the "chunkiness" of the data; this allows the calling code to use inside knowledge of the data without doing any extra work Is almost agnostic to the buffer size (it will work correctly with any size buffer irrespective of the data being read) The bad That last almost is a very big one. Consider what happens when there is an incoming chunk with length exactly equal to the size of the buffer. The chunk will be read and buffered, but the event will not be triggered. This will be followed up by a BeginRead that expects to find more data belonging to the current chunk in order to send it back all in one piece, but... there will be no more data in the stream. In fact, as long as data is put into the stream in chunks with length exactly equal to the buffer size, the data will be buffered and the event will never be triggered. This scenario may be highly unlikely to occur in practice, especially since we can pick any number for the buffer size, but the problem is there. Solution? Unfortunately, after checking the available methods on FileStream and StreamReader, I can't find anything which lets me peek into the stream while also allowing async methods to be used on it. One "solution" would be to have a thread wait on a ManualResetEvent after the "buffer filled" condition is detected. If the event is not signaled (by the async callback) in a small amount of time, then more data from the stream will not be forthcoming and the data accumulated so far should be sent to subscribers. However, this introduces the need for another thread, requires thread synchronization, and is plain inelegant. Specifying a timeout for BeginRead would also suffice (call back into my code every now and then so I can check if there's data to be sent back; most of the time there will not be anything to do, so I expect the performance hit to be negligible). But it looks like timeouts are not supported in FileStream. Since I imagine that async calls with timeouts are an option in bare Win32, another approach might be to PInvoke the hell out of the problem. But this is also undesirable as it will introduce complexity and simply be a pain to code. Is there an elegant way to get around the problem? Thanks for being patient enough to read all of this.

    Read the article

  • Threading process in asp.net

    - by Zerotoinfinite
    Hi All, I am using asp.net 3.5 and C#. I have a blog site and I want that whenever user enter any comment, the suscriber related to that post will get the notification. So what I am doing that I am sending mail at the same time as the comment is inserted into the table, which sometimes take time because of the quantity of user. Is their any way that user enter the comment into the database and the send mail function will run asynchornysly which will not interfear user to go ahead with his task. please let me know how to acheieve it in a simplier way. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How to asynchronously read to std::string using Boost::asio?

    - by SpyBot
    Hello. I'm learning Boost::asio and all that async stuff. How can I asynchronously read to variable user_ of type std::string? Boost::asio::buffer(user_) works only with async_write(), but not with async_read(). It works with vector, so what is the reason for it not to work with string? Is there another way to do that besides declaring char user_[max_len] and using Boost::asio::buffer(user_, max_len)? Also, what's the point of inheriting from boost::enable_shared_from_this<Connection> and using shared_from_this() instead of this in async_read() and async_write()? I've seen that a lot in the examples. Here is a part of my code: class Connection { public: Connection(tcp::acceptor &acceptor) : acceptor_(acceptor), socket_(acceptor.get_io_service(), tcp::v4()) { } void start() { acceptor_.get_io_service().post( boost::bind(&Connection::start_accept, this)); } private: void start_accept() { acceptor_.async_accept(socket_, boost::bind(&Connection::handle_accept, this, placeholders::error)); } void handle_accept(const boost::system::error_code& err) { if (err) { disconnect(); } else { async_read(socket_, boost::asio::buffer(user_), boost::bind(&Connection::handle_user_read, this, placeholders::error, placeholders::bytes_transferred)); } } void handle_user_read(const boost::system::error_code& err, std::size_t bytes_transferred) { if ( err or (bytes_transferred != sizeof(user_)) ) { disconnect(); } else { ... } } ... void disconnect() { socket_.shutdown(tcp::socket::shutdown_both); socket_.close(); socket_.open(tcp::v4()); start_accept(); } tcp::acceptor &acceptor_; tcp::socket socket_; std::string user_; std::string pass_; ... };

    Read the article

  • How can I safely raise events in an AsyncCallback?

    - by cyclotis04
    I'm writing a wrapper class around a TcpClient which raises an event when data arrives. I'm using BeginRead and EndRead, but when the parent form handles the event, it's not running on the UI thread. I do I need to use delegates and pass the context into the callback? I thought that callbacks were a way to avoid this... void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult ar) { int length = _tcpClient.GetStream().EndRead(ar); _stringBuilder.Append(ByteArrayToString(_buffer, length)); BeginRead(); OnStringArrival(EventArgs.Empty); }

    Read the article

  • ItemsControl that loads items one by one asynchronously.

    - by Vinit Sankhe
    Hey Guys, I am creating a custom DataGrid by deriving the traditional tookit based WPF DataGrid. I want a functionality in the grid to load items one by one asynchronously, wherein as soon as ItemsSource is changed i.e. a new collection is Set to the ItemsSource property or the bound collection is Changed dues to items that rae added, moved or removed (wherein the notifications comes to the data grid when the underlying source implements INotifyCollectionChanged such as ObservableCollection). This is because even with virtualising stackpanel underneath the datagrid takes time to load (2-3 seconds delay) to load the data rows when it has several columns and some are template based. With above behavior that delay would "appear" to have reduced giving datagrid a feel that it has the data and is responsive enough to load it. How can I achieve it? Thx Vinit.

    Read the article

  • jQuery: 'async: false' Not Working With IE7 / IE6

    - by Norbert
    I created a simple tracking script which adds the users info to a database when the page is unloaded. It works on all browsers except IE7 and IE6. IE7 gives me errors, but I can't open the "debugger" because I'm using the standalone version (or at least that's what I think the problems is). I removed the async: false, from the script below and I didn't get any errors, but I need async set to false in order for the script to work. Any ideas? $(window).unload(function() { $.ajax({ type: "POST", async: false, url: "add.php", data: "ip=" + jIp + "&date=" + jDate + "&time=" + jTime, }); }); Update: I got IE7 to display the error, kinda. When I click OK on the dialog on top, it closes both dialogs. Ugh!

    Read the article

  • How to handle multiple responses from single web service call in Flex?

    - by Karan
    I have a requirement where a web service call should be fired from the flex side and this web service is an async web service which would return more than one response. In current Flex environment that I have worked in , when we call a webservice - we get a single response corresponding to that web service, but how take make a webservice call which should keep listening to multiple responses ??

    Read the article

  • Threading.Timer invokes asynchronously many methods

    - by Dimitar
    Hi guys! Please help! I call a threading.timer from global.asax which invokes many methods each of which gets data from different services and writes it to files. My question is how do i make the methods to be invoked on a regular basis let's say 5 mins? What i do is: in Global.asax I declare a timer protected void Application_Start() { TimerCallback timerDelegate = new TimerCallback(myMainMethod); Timer mytimer = new Timer(timerDelegate, null, 0, 300000); Application.Add("timer", mytimer); } the declaration of myMainMethod looks like this: public static void myMainMethod(object obj) { MyDelegateType d1 = new MyDelegateType(getandwriteServiceData1); d1.BeginInvoke(null, null); MyDelegateType d2 = new MyDelegateType(getandwriteServiceData2); d2.BeginInvoke(null, null); } this approach works fine but it invokes myMainMethod every 5 mins. What I need is the method to be invoked 5 mins after all the data is retreaved and written to files on the server. How do I do that?

    Read the article

  • Performing non-blocking requests? - Django

    - by RadiantHex
    Hi folks, I have been playing with other frameworks, such as NodeJS, lately. I love the possibility to return a response, and still being able to do further operations. e.g. def view(request): do_something() return HttpResponse() do_more_stuff() #not possible!!! Maybe Django already offers a way to perform operations after returning a request, if that is the case that would be great. Help would be very much appreciated! =D

    Read the article

  • Creating futures using Apple's GCD

    - by jer
    I'm working on a library which implements the actor model on top of Grand Central Dispatch (specifically the C level API libdispatch). Basically a brief overview of my system is as such: Communication happens between actors using messages Multicast communication only (one actor to many actors) Senders and receivers are decoupled from one another using a blackboard where messages are pushed to. Messages are sent in the default queue asynchronously using dispatch_group_async() once a message gets pushed onto the blackboard. I'm trying to implement futures in the language right now, so I've created a new type which holds some information: A group of its own The value being 'returned' However, I have a problem since dispatch_block_t is of type void (^)(void) so it doesn't return anything. So my idea of in my future_new() function of setting up another group which can be used to execute a block returning a result, which I can store in my "value" member in my future_t structure, isn't going to work. The rest of the futures implementation is very clear, except it all depends on being able to get the value into the future back from the actor, acting on the message. When using the library, it would greatly reduce its usefulness if I had to ask users (and myself) to be aware when futures were going to be used by other parts of the system—It just isn't practical. I'm wondering if anyone can think of a way around this?

    Read the article

  • generic async loading method for page web scripts?

    - by boomhauer
    The google analytics code went to an async load model some time back. I've noticed that a lot of the other scripts I use on many sites are causing slow load times - specifically the addthis script and the facebook like button. I'm noticing that the slow load times of these scripts is causing the google bot to calc my page loadtimes as being much slower than previously. I'd like to know if there is a standard/generic way of causing these scripts to load async as well, or perhaps a pointer to someone who has done the work for this already. Seems this would be a popular thing to do, but not much luck searching around.

    Read the article

  • Non-blocking MySQL updates with java?

    - by justkevin
    For a multiplayer game I'm working on I'd like to record events to the mysql database without blocking the game update thread so that if the database is busy or a table is locked the game doesn't stop running while it waits for a write. What's the best way to accomplish this? I'm using c3p0 to manage the database connection pool. My best idea so far is to add query update strings to a synchronized list with an independent thread checking the list every 100ms and executing the queries it finds there.

    Read the article

  • Async call Objective C iphone

    - by Sam
    Hi guys, I'm trying to get data from a website- xml. Everything works fine. But the UIButton remains pressed until the xml data is returned and thus if theres a problem with the internet service, it cant be corrected and the app is virtually unusable. here are the calls: { AppDelegate *appDelegate = (AppDelegate *)[[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate]; if(!appDelegate.XMLdataArray.count > 0){ [UIApplication sharedApplication].networkActivityIndicatorVisible = YES; [appDelegate GetApps]; //function that retrieves data from Website and puts into the array - XMLdataArray. } XMLViewController *controller = [[XMLViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"MedGearsApps" bundle:nil]; [self.navigationController pushViewController:controller animated:YES]; [controller release]; } It works fine, but how can I make the view buttons functional with getting stuck. In other words, I just want the UIButton and other UIButtons to be functional whiles the thing works in the background. I heard about performSelectorInMainThread but i cant put it to practice correctly any help is appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • C# async callback on disposed form

    - by Rodney Burton
    Quick question: One of my forms in my winform app (c#) makes an async call to a WCF service to get some data. If the form happens to close before the callback happens, it crashes with an error about accessing a disposed object. What's the correct way to check/handle this situation? The error happens on the Invoke call to the method to update my form, but I can't drill down to the inner exception because it says the code has been optimized. The Code: public void RequestUserPhoto(int userID) { WCF.Service.BeginGetUserPhoto(userID, new AsyncCallback(GetUserPhotoCB), userID); } public void GetUserPhotoCB(IAsyncResult result) { var photo = WCF.Service.EndGetUserPhoto(result); int userID = (int)result.AsyncState; UpdateUserPhoto(userID, photo); } public delegate void UpdateUserPhotoDelegate(int userID, Binary photo); public void UpdateUserPhoto(int userID, Binary photo) { if (InvokeRequired) { var d = new UpdateUserPhotoDelegate(UpdateUserPhoto); Invoke(d, new object[] { userID, photo }); } else { if (photo != null) { var ms = new MemoryStream(photo.ToArray()); var bmp = new System.Drawing.Bitmap(ms); if (userID == theForm.AuthUserID) { pbMyPhoto.BackgroundImage = bmp; } else { pbPhoto.BackgroundImage = bmp; } } } }

    Read the article

  • Python's asyncore to periodically send data using a variable timeout. Is there a better way?

    - by Nick Sonneveld
    I wanted to write a server that a client could connect to and receive periodic updates without having to poll. The problem I have experienced with asyncore is that if you do not return true when dispatcher.writable() is called, you have to wait until after the asyncore.loop has timed out (default is 30s). The two ways I have tried to work around this is 1) reduce timeout to a low value or 2) query connections for when they will next update and generate an adequate timeout value. However if you refer to 'Select Law' in 'man 2 select_tut', it states, "You should always try to use select() without a timeout." Is there a better way to do this? Twisted maybe? I wanted to try and avoid extra threads. I'll include the variable timeout example here: #!/usr/bin/python import time import socket import asyncore # in seconds UPDATE_PERIOD = 4.0 class Channel(asyncore.dispatcher): def __init__(self, sock, sck_map): asyncore.dispatcher.__init__(self, sock=sock, map=sck_map) self.last_update = 0.0 # should update immediately self.send_buf = '' self.recv_buf = '' def writable(self): return len(self.send_buf) > 0 def handle_write(self): nbytes = self.send(self.send_buf) self.send_buf = self.send_buf[nbytes:] def handle_read(self): print 'read' print 'recv:', self.recv(4096) def handle_close(self): print 'close' self.close() # added for variable timeout def update(self): if time.time() >= self.next_update(): self.send_buf += 'hello %f\n'%(time.time()) self.last_update = time.time() def next_update(self): return self.last_update + UPDATE_PERIOD class Server(asyncore.dispatcher): def __init__(self, port, sck_map): asyncore.dispatcher.__init__(self, map=sck_map) self.port = port self.sck_map = sck_map self.create_socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) self.bind( ("", port)) self.listen(16) print "listening on port", self.port def handle_accept(self): (conn, addr) = self.accept() Channel(sock=conn, sck_map=self.sck_map) # added for variable timeout def update(self): pass def next_update(self): return None sck_map = {} server = Server(9090, sck_map) while True: next_update = time.time() + 30.0 for c in sck_map.values(): c.update() # <-- fill write buffers n = c.next_update() #print 'n:',n if n is not None: next_update = min(next_update, n) _timeout = max(0.1, next_update - time.time()) asyncore.loop(timeout=_timeout, count=1, map=sck_map)

    Read the article

  • What is the right pattern for a async data fetching method in .net async/await

    - by s093294
    Given a class with a method GetData. A few other clients call GetData, and instead of it fetching data each time, i would like to create a pattern where the first call starts the task to get the data, and the rest of the calls wait for the task to complete. private Task<string> _data; private async Task<string> _getdata() { return "my random data from the net"; //get_data_from_net() } public string GetData() { if(_data==null) _data=_getdata(); _data.wait(); //are there not a problem here. cant wait a task that is already completed ? if(_data.status != rantocompletion) _data.wait() is not any better, it might complete between the check and the _data.wait? return _data.Result; } How would i do the pattern correctly? (Solution) private static object _servertime_lock = new object(); private static Task<string> _servertime; private static async Task<string> servertime() { try { var thetvdb = new HttpClient(); thetvdb.Timeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5); // var st = await thetvdb.GetStreamAsync("http://www.thetvdb.com/api/Updates.php?type=none"); var response = await thetvdb.GetAsync("http://www.thetvdb.com/api/Updates.php?type=none"); response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode(); Stream stream = await response.Content.ReadAsStreamAsync(); XDocument xdoc = XDocument.Load(stream); return xdoc.Descendants("Time").First().Value; } catch { return null; } } public static async Task<string> GetServerTime() { lock (_servertime_lock) { if (_servertime == null) _servertime = servertime(); } var time = await _servertime; if (time == null) _servertime = null; return time; }

    Read the article

  • Create a Task list, with tasks without executing

    - by Ernesto Araya Eguren
    I have an async method private async Task DoSomething(CancellationToken token) a list of Tasks private List<Task> workers = new List<Task>(); and I have to create N threads that runs that method public void CreateThreads(int n) { tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource(); token = tokenSource.Token; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { workers.Add(DoSomething(token)); } } but the problem is that those have to run at a given time public async Task StartAllWorkers() { if (0 < workers.Count) { try { while (0 < workers.Count) { Task finishedWorker = await Task.WhenAny(workers.ToArray()); workers.Remove(finishedWorker); finishedWorker.Dispose(); } if (workers.Count == 0) { tokenSource = null; } } catch (OperationCanceledException) { throw; } } } but actually they run when i call the CreateThreads Method (before the StartAllWorkers). I searched for keywords and problems like mine but couldn't find anything about stopping the task from running. I've tried a lot of different aproaches but anything that could solve my problem entirely. For example, moving the code from DoSomething into a workers.Add(new Task(async () => { }, token)); would run the StartAllWorkers(), but the threads will never actually start. There is another method for calling the tokenSource.Cancel().

    Read the article

  • Create multiple TCP Connections in C# then wait for data

    - by Ryan French
    Hi Everyone, I am currently creating a Windows Service that will create TCP connections to multiple machines (same socket on all machines) and then listen for 'events' from those machines. I am attempting to write the code to create a connection and then spawn a thread that listens to the connection waiting for packets from the machine, then decode the packets that come through, and call a function depending on the payload of the packet. The problem is I'm not entirely sure how to do that in C#. Does anyone have any helpful suggestions or links that might help me do this? Thanks in advance for any help!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET AJAX weirdness

    - by LoveMeSomeCode
    Ok, I thought I understood these topics well, but I guess not, so hopefully someone here can clear this up. Page.IsAsync seems to be broken. It always returns false. But ScriptManager.IsInAsyncPostBack seems to work, sort of. It returns true during the round trip for controls inside UpdatePanels. This is good; I can tell if it's a partial postback or a regular one. ScriptManager.IsInAsyncPostBack returns false however for async Page Methods. Why is this? It's not a regular postback, I'm just calling a public static method on the page. It causes a problem because I also realized that if you have a control with AutoPostBack = false, it won't trigger a postback on it's own, but if it has an event handler on the page, that event handler code WILL run on the next postback, regardless of how the postback occurred, IF the value has changed. i.e. if I tweak a dropdown and then hit a button, that dropdown's handler code will fire. This is ok, except that it will also happen during Page Method calls, and I have no way to know the difference. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • ReadFile doesn't work asynchronously on Win7 and Win2k8

    - by f0b0s
    According to MSDN ReadFile can read data 2 different ways: synchronously and asynchronously. I need the second one. The folowing code demonstrates usage with OVERLAPPED struct: #include <windows.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> void Read() { HANDLE hFile = CreateFileA("c:\\1.avi", GENERIC_READ, 0, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING, FILE_FLAG_OVERLAPPED, NULL); if ( hFile == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE ) { printf("Failed to open the file\n"); return; } int dataSize = 256 * 1024 * 1024; char* data = (char*)malloc(dataSize); memset(data, 0xFF, dataSize); OVERLAPPED overlapped; memset(&overlapped, 0, sizeof(overlapped)); printf("reading: %d\n", time(NULL)); BOOL result = ReadFile(hFile, data, dataSize, NULL, &overlapped); printf("sent: %d\n", time(NULL)); DWORD bytesRead; result = GetOverlappedResult(hFile, &overlapped, &bytesRead, TRUE); // wait until completion - returns immediately printf("done: %d\n", time(NULL)); CloseHandle(hFile); } int main() { Read(); } On Windows XP output is: reading: 1296651896 sent: 1296651896 done: 1296651899 It means that ReadFile didn't block and returned imediatly at the same second, whereas reading process continued for 3 seconds. It is normal async reading. But on windows 7 and windows 2008 I get following results: reading: 1296661205 sent: 1296661209 done: 1296661209. It is a behavior of sync reading. MSDN says that async ReadFile sometimes can behave as sync (when the file is compressed or encrypted for example). But the return value in this situation should be TRUE and GetLastError() == NO_ERROR. On Windows 7 I get FALSE and GetLastError() == ERROR_IO_PENDING. So WinApi tells me that it is an async call, but when I look at the test I see that it is not! I'm not the only one who found this "bug": read the comment on ReadFile MSDN page. So what's the solution? Does anybody know? It is been 14 months after Denis found this strange behavior.

    Read the article

  • How can I debug an unhandled exception in code called from a BackgroundWorker?

    - by SkippyFire
    I am running some import code asynchronously from a simple WinForms app using a BackgroundWorker object and its DoAsync() method. I had a problem where I didn't know that exceptions were being thrown and the thread was prematurely dying. I eventually discovered this, and now know when an exception is thrown after reading Unhandled exceptions in BackgroundWorker. However, I still have a problem while debugging. How do I debug this code? I guess I could run it in a test app that doesn't use a BackgrounWorker, but is there a way to debug this as is? If I step through the code that actually throws the exception, I just get kicked out the step-through when the exception occurs. Re-throwing the exception from the RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler naturally doesn't help much either. Any ideas!? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • WPF windows locked when calling webservice. Even when run asynchronously

    - by SumGuy
    Hi there. I'm having a big problem when calling a web service from my WPF application. The application/window locks until the process has completed. I've attempted to run this asynchronously but the problem still persists. Currently, the web service call I'm making can last 45-60 seconds. It runs a process on the server to fetch a big chunk of data. As it take a little while I wanted to have a progress bar moving indeterminately for the user to see that the application hasn't stalled or anything (you know how impatatient they get). So: private void btnSelect_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { wDrawingList = new WindowDrawingList(systemManager); AsyncMethodHandler caller = default(AsyncMethodHandler); caller = new AsyncMethodHandler(setupDrawingList); // open new thread with callback method caller.BeginInvoke((Guid)((Button)sender).Tag, MyAsyncCallback, null); } Click a button and the app will create the form that the async stuff will be posted to and set up the async stuff calling the async method. public bool setupDrawingList(Guid ID) { if (systemManager.set(ID)) { wDrawingList.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Background, new Action(() => { wDrawingList.ShowForm(); Hide(); })); return true; } return false; } This is the async method. The showForm method contains the calls to setup the new form including the monster web service call public void MyAsyncCallback(IAsyncResult ar) { // Because you passed your original delegate in the asyncState parameter of the Begin call, you can get it back here to complete the call. MethodDelegate dlgt = (MethodDelegate)ar.AsyncState; // Complete the call. bool output = dlgt.EndInvoke(ar); try { // Retrieve the delegate. AsyncResult result = (AsyncResult)ar; AsyncMethodHandler caller = (AsyncMethodHandler)result.AsyncDelegate; // Because this method is running from secondary thread it can never access ui objects because they are created // on the primary thread. // Call EndInvoke to retrieve the results. bool returnValue = caller.EndInvoke(ar); // Still on secondary thread, must update ui on primary thread UpdateUI(returnValue == true ? "Success" : "Failed"); } catch (Exception ex) { string exMessage = null; exMessage = "Error: " + ex.Message; UpdateUI(exMessage); } } public void UpdateUI(string outputValue) { // Get back to primary thread to update ui UpdateUIHandler uiHandler = new UpdateUIHandler(UpdateUIIndicators); string results = outputValue; // Run new thread off Dispatched (primary thread) this.Dispatcher.Invoke(System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherPriority.Normal, uiHandler, results); } public void UpdateUIIndicators(string outputValue) { // update user interface controls from primary UI thread sbi3.Content = "Processing Completed."; } Any help or theories are appreciated. I'm at a loss. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >