Search Results

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

Page 18/344 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • WCF Service with callbacks coming from background thread?

    - by Mark Struzinski
    Here is my situation. I have written a WCF service which calls into one of our vendor's code bases to perform operations, such as Login, Logout, etc. A requirement of this operation is that we have a background thread to receive events as a result of that action. For example, the Login action is sent on the main thread. Then, several events are received back from the vendor service as a result of the login. There can be 1, 2, or several events received. The background thread, which runs on a timer, receives these events and fires an event in the wcf service to notify that a new event has arrived. I have implemented the WCF service in Duplex mode, and planned to use callbacks to notify the UI that events have arrived. Here is my question: How do I send new events from the background thread to the thread which is executing the service? Right now, when I call OperationContext.Current.GetCallbackChannel<IMyCallback>(), the OperationContext is null. Is there a standard pattern to get around this? I am using PerSession as my SessionMode on the ServiceContract. UPDATE: I thought I'd make my exact scenario clearer by demonstrating how I'm receiving events from the vendor code. My library receives each event, determines what the event is, and fires off an event for that particular occurrence. I have another project which is a class library specifically for connecting to the vendor service. I'll post the entire implementation of the service to give a clearer picture: [ServiceBehavior( InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerSession )] public class VendorServer:IVendorServer { private IVendorService _vendorService; // This is the reference to my class library public VendorServer() { _vendorServer = new VendorServer(); _vendorServer.AgentManager.AgentLoggedIn += AgentManager_AgentLoggedIn; // This is the eventhandler for the event which arrives from a background thread } public void Login(string userName, string password, string stationId) { _vendorService.Login(userName, password, stationId); // This is a direct call from the main thread to the vendor service to log in } private void AgentManager_AgentLoggedIn(object sender, EventArgs e) { var agentEvent = new AgentEvent { AgentEventType = AgentEventType.Login, EventArgs = e }; } } The AgentEvent object contains the callback as one of its properties, and I was thinking I'd perform the callback like this: agentEvent.Callback = OperationContext.Current.GetCallbackChannel<ICallback>(); How would I pass the OperationContext.Current instance from the main thread into the background thread?

    Read the article

  • How does the event dispatch thread work?

    - by Roman
    With the help of people on stackoverflow I was able to get the following working code of the simples GUI countdown (it just displays a window counting down seconds). My main problem with this code is the invokeLater stuff. As far as I understand the invokeLater send a task to the event dispatching thread (EDT) and then the EDT execute this task whenever it "can" (whatever it means). Is it right? To my understanding the code works like that: In the main method we use invokeLater to show the window (showGUI method). In other words, the code displaying the window will be executed in the EDT. In the main method we also start the counter and the counter (by construction) is executed in another thread (so it is not in the event dispatching thread). Right? The counter is executed in a separate thread and periodically it calls updateGUI. The updateGUI is supposed to update GUI. And GUI is working in the EDT. So, updateGUI should also be executed in the EDT. It is why the code for the updateGUI is inclosed in the invokeLater. Is it right? What is not clear to me is why we call the counter from the EDT. Anyway it is not executed in the EDT. It starts immediately a new thread and the counter is executed there. So, why we cannot call the counter in the main method after the invokeLater block? import javax.swing.JFrame; import javax.swing.JLabel; import javax.swing.SwingUtilities; public class CountdownNew { static JLabel label; // Method which defines the appearance of the window. public static void showGUI() { JFrame frame = new JFrame("Simple Countdown"); frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); label = new JLabel("Some Text"); frame.add(label); frame.pack(); frame.setVisible(true); } // Define a new thread in which the countdown is counting down. public static Thread counter = new Thread() { public void run() { for (int i=10; i>0; i=i-1) { updateGUI(i,label); try {Thread.sleep(1000);} catch(InterruptedException e) {}; } } }; // A method which updates GUI (sets a new value of JLabel). private static void updateGUI(final int i, final JLabel label) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater( new Runnable() { public void run() { label.setText("You have " + i + " seconds."); } } ); } public static void main(String[] args) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { showGUI(); counter.start(); } }); } }

    Read the article

  • Facebook API returning wrong unread thread count

    - by houbysoft
    I'm trying to query the thread FQL table to get all unread messages, and also the count of unread items in the thread. This is how I query the table: SELECT thread_id,updated_time,snippet,snippet_author,unread FROM thread WHERE folder_id=0 AND unread!=0 From reading the doc to which I linked above, it seems to me that unread should include the count of unread messages in the thread. However, I just tested the above call and Facebook gives me back a value of unread=1, despite the thread in question having 4 unread items. This is how the thread looks on facebook.com (notice the (4), showing that unread should be 4): This is what the API returns to me, which is wrong (notice the "unread":1): { "data":[ { "name":"messages", "fql_result_set":[ { "thread_id":"BLAH BLAH BLAH", "updated_time":1333317140, "snippet":"BLAH BLAH BLAH", "snippet_author":BLAH, "unread":1 } ] } ] } Am I doing something wrong, or is this a bug?

    Read the article

  • How do I refactor this IEnumerable<T> to be thread-safe?

    - by DayOne
    I am looking at Skeet's AtomicEnumerable but I'm not sure how to integrate it into my current IEnumerable exmaple below (http://msmvps.com/blogs/jon_skeet/archive/2009/10/23/iterating-atomically.aspx) Basically I want to foreach my blahs type in a thread-safe way. thanks public sealed class Blahs : IEnumerable<string> { private readonly IList<string> _data = new List<string>() { "blah1", "blah2", "blah3" }; public IEnumerator<string> GetEnumerator() { return _data.GetEnumerator(); } IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() { return GetEnumerator(); } }

    Read the article

  • iPhone: One Object, One Thread

    - by GingerBreadMane
    On the iPhone, I would like to do some operations on an image in a separate thread. Rather than dealing with semiphores, locking, etc., I'd like to use the 'One Object, One Thread' method of safely writing this concurrent operation. I'm not sure what is the correct way to copy my object into a new thread so that the object is not accessed in the main thread. Do I use the 'copy' method? If so, do I do this before the thread or inside the thread? ... -(void)someMethod{ UIImage *myImage; [NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(getRotatedImage:) toTarget:self withObject:myImage]; } -(void)getRotatedImage:(UIImage *)image{ ... ... UIImage *copiedImage = [image copy]; ... ... }

    Read the article

  • How does one implement a truly asynchronous java thread

    - by Ritesh M Nayak
    I have a function that needs to perfom two operations, one which finishes fast and one which takes a long time to run. I want to be able to delegate the long running operation to a thread and I dont care when the thread finishes, but the threads needs to complete. I implemented this as shown below , but, my secondoperation never gets done as the function exits after the start() call. How I can ensure that the function returns but the second operation thread finishes its execution as well and is not dependent on the parent thread ? public void someFunction(String data) { smallOperation() Blah a = new Blah(); Thread th = new Thread(a); th.Start(); } class SecondOperation implements Runnable { public void run(){ // doSomething long running } }

    Read the article

  • How can I synchronize database access between a write-thread and a read-thread?

    - by Runcible
    My program has two threads: Main execution thread that handles user input and queues up database writes A utility thread that wakes up every second and flushes the writes to the database Inside the main thread, I occasionally need to make reads on the database. When this happens, performance is not important, but correctness is. (In a perfect world, I would be reading from a cache, not making a round-trip to the database - but let's put that aside for the sake of discussion.) How do I make sure that the main thread sees a correct / quiescent database? A standard mutex won't work, since I run the risk of having the main thread grab the mutex before the data gets flushed to the database. This would be a big race condition. What I really want is some sort of mutex that lets the main thread of execution proceed only AFTER the mutex has been grabbed and released once. Does such a thing exist? What's the best way to solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Can the lock function be used to implement thread-safe enumeration?

    - by Daniel
    I'm working on a thread-safe collection that uses Dictionary as a backing store. In C# you can do the following: private IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<K, V>> Enumerate() { if (_synchronize) { lock (_locker) { foreach (var entry in _dict) yield return entry; } } else { foreach (var entry in _dict) yield return entry; } } The only way I've found to do this in F# is using Monitor, e.g.: let enumerate() = if synchronize then seq { System.Threading.Monitor.Enter(locker) try for entry in dict -> entry finally System.Threading.Monitor.Exit(locker) } else seq { for entry in dict -> entry } Can this be done using the lock function? Or, is there a better way to do this in general? I don't think returning a copy of the collection for iteration will work because I need absolute synchronization.

    Read the article

  • Is this a valid, lazy, thread-safe Singleton implementation for C#?

    - by Matthew
    I implemented a Singleton pattern like this: public sealed class MyClass { ... public static MyClass Instance { get { return SingletonHolder.instance; } } ... static class SingletonHolder { public static MyClass instance = new MyClass (); } } From Googling around for C# Singleton implementations, it doesn't seem like this is a common way to do things in C#. I found one similar implementation, but the SingletonHolder class wasn't static, and included an explicit (empty) static constructor. Is this a valid, lazy, thread-safe way to implement the Singleton pattern? Or is there something I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Putting a thread to sleep until event X occurs

    - by tipu
    I'm writing to many files in a threaded app and I'm creating one handler per file. I have HandlerFactory class that manages the distribution of these handlers. What I'd like to do is that thread A requests and gets foo.txt's file handle from the HandlerFactory class thread B requests foo.txt's file handler handler class recognizes that this file handle has been checked out handler class puts thread A to sleep thread B closes file handle using a wrapper method from HandlerFactory HandlerFactory notifies sleeping threads thread B wakes and successfully gets foo.txt's file handle This is what I have so far, def get_handler(self, file_path, type): self.lock.acquire() if file_path not in self.handlers: self.handlers[file_path] = open(file_path, type) elif not self.handlers[file_path].closed: time.sleep(1) self.lock.release() return self.handlers[file_path][type] I believe this covers the sleeping and handler retrieval successfully, but I am unsure how to wake up all threads, or even better wake up a specific thread.

    Read the article

  • Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    Read the article

  • [C++] Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    Read the article

  • Running a loop (such as one for a mock webserver) within a thread

    - by bob c
    I'm trying to run a mock webserver within a thread within a class. I've tried passing the class' @server property to the thread block but as soon as I try to do server.accept the thread stops. Is there some way to make this work? I want to basically be able to run a webserver off of this script while still taking user input via stdin.gets. Is this possible? class Server def initialize() @server = TCPServer.new(8080) end def run() @thread = Thread.new(@server) { |server| while true newsock = server.accept puts "some stuff after accept!" next if !newsock # some other stuff end } end end def processCommand() # some user commands here end test = Server.new while true do processCommand(STDIN.gets) end In the above sample, the thread dies on server.accept

    Read the article

  • What will or won't cause a thread to block (a question from a test)

    - by fingerprint211b
    I've had a test, and there was a question I lost some points on, because I wasn't able to answer it : Which of the following is NOT a condition which can cause a thread to block : Calling an objects's wait() method Waiting for an I/O operation Calling sleep() Calling yield() Calling join() As far as I know, all of these are blocking calls : wait() returns when an something calls notify(), blocks until then If the thread is WAITING for an I/O operation then it's obviously blocked sleep(), obviously, blocks until the time runs out, or something wakes up the thread yield() "cancels the rest of the thread's timeslice" (lacking a better term), and returns only when the thread is active again join() blocks until the thread it's waiting for terminates. Am I missing something here?

    Read the article

  • How to write a "thread safe" function in C ?

    - by Andrei Ciobanu
    Hello I am writing some data structures in C, and I've realized that their associated functions aren't thread safe. The i am writing code uses only standard C, and I want to achieve some sort of 'synchronization'. I was thinking to do something like this: enum sync_e { TRUE, FALSE }; typedef enum sync_e sync; struct list_s { //Other stuff struct list_node_s *head; struct list_node_s *tail; enum sync_e locked; }; typedef struct list_s list; , to include a "boolean" field in the list structure that indicates the structures state: locked, unlocked. For example an insertion function will be rewritten this way: int list_insert_next(list* l, list_node *e, int x){ while(l->locked == TRUE){ /* Wait */ } l->locked = TRUE; /* Insert element */ /* -------------- */ l->locked = FALSE; return (0); } While operating on the list the 'locked' field will be set to TRUE, not allowing any other alterations. After operation completes the 'locked' field will be again set to 'TRUE'. Is this approach good ? Do you know other approaches (using only standard C).

    Read the article

  • Windows App. Thread Aborting Issue

    - by Patrick
    I'm working on an application that has to make specific decisions based on files that are placed into a folder being watched by a file watcher. Part of this decision making process involves renaming files before moving them off to another folder to be processed. Since I'm working with files of all different sizes I created an object that checks the file in a seperate thread to verify that it is "available" and when it is it fires an event. When I run the rename code from inside this available event it works. public void RenameFile_Test() { string psFilePath = @"C:\File1.xlsx"; tgt_File target = new FileObject(psFilePath); target.FileAvailable += new FileEventHandler(OnFileAvailable); target.FileUnAvailable += new FileEventHandler(OnFileUnavailable); } private void OnFileAvailable(object source, FileEventArgs e) { ((FileObject)source).RenameFile(@"C:\File2.xlsx"); } The problem I'm running into is that when the extensions are different from the source file and the rename to file I am making a call to a conversion factory that returns a factory object based on the type of conversion and then converts the file accordingly before doing the rename. When I run that particular piece of code in unit test it works, the factory object is returned, and the conversion happens correctly. But when I run it within the process I get up to the... moExcelApp = new Application(); part of converting an .xls or .xlsx to a .csv and i get a "Thread was being Aborted" error. Any thoughts? Update: There is a bit more information and a bit of map of how the application works currently. Client Application running FSW On File Created event Creates a FileObject passing in the path of the file. On construction the file is validated: if file exists is true then, Thread toAvailableCheck = new Thread(new ThreadStart(AvailableCheck)); toAvailableCheck.Start(); The AvailableCheck Method repeatedly tries to open a streamreader to the file until the reader is either created or the number of attempts times out. If the reader is opened, it fires the FileAvailable event, if not it fires the FileUnAvailable event, passing back itself in the event. The client application is wired to catch those events from inside the Oncreated event of the FSW. the OnFileAvailable method then calls the rename functionality which contains the excel interop call. If the file is being renamed (not converted, extensions stay the same) it does a move to change the name from the old file name to the new, and if its a conversion it runs a conversion factory object which returns the correct type of conversion based on the extensions of the source file and the destination file name. If it is a simple rename it works w/o a problem. If its a conversion (which is the XLS to CSV object that is returned as a part of the factory) the very first thing it does is create a new application object. That is where the application bombs. When i test the factory and conversion/rename process outside of the thread and in its own unit test the process works w/o a problem. Update: I tested the Excel Interop inside a thread by doing this: [TestMethod()] public void ExcelInteropTest() { Thread toExcelInteropThreadTest = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Instantiate_App)); toExcelInteropThreadTest.Start(); } private void Instantiate_App() { Application moExcelApp = new Application(); moExcelApp.Quit(); } And on the line where the application is instatntiated I got the 'A first chance exception of type 'System.Threading.ThreadAbortException' error. So I added; toExcelInteropThreadTest.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.MTA); after the thread instantiation and before the thread start call and still got the same error. I'm getting the notion that I'm going to have to reconsider the design.

    Read the article

  • An unspecified error occurred on the render thread. (NotifyPartitionIsZombie)

    - by red-X
    oke heres the problem, I have a ContentControl3D object from thriple in that im creating a LibraryStack with images it runs fine, until i run the function where the LibraryStack gets created and filled. when i click on any of the objects inside i get the following error An unspecified error occurred on the render thread. with stacktrace at System.Windows.Media.MediaContext.NotifyPartitionIsZombie(Int32 failureCode) at System.Windows.Media.MediaContext.NotifyChannelMessage() at System.Windows.Interop.HwndTarget.HandleMessage(Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam) at System.Windows.Interop.HwndSource.HwndTargetFilterMessage(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam, Boolean& handled) at MS.Win32.HwndWrapper.WndProc(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam, Boolean& handled) at MS.Win32.HwndSubclass.DispatcherCallbackOperation(Object o) at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.InternalRealCall(Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter) at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.TryCatchWhen(Object source, Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.WrappedInvoke(Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.InvokeImpl(DispatcherPriority priority, TimeSpan timeout, Delegate method, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority priority, Delegate method, Object arg) at MS.Win32.HwndSubclass.SubclassWndProc(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam) at MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.DispatchMessage(MSG& msg) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrameImpl(DispatcherFrame frame) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrame(DispatcherFrame frame) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Run() at System.Windows.Application.RunDispatcher(Object ignore) at System.Windows.Application.RunInternal(Window window) at System.Windows.Application.Run(Window window) at System.Windows.Application.Run() at WelkoMap.App.Main() in F:\MediaGarde\Surface\Development\WelkoMap\WelkoMap\obj\Debug\App.g.cs:line 0 at System.AppDomain._nExecuteAssembly(Assembly assembly, String[] args) at System.AppDomain.ExecuteAssembly(String assemblyFile, Evidence assemblySecurity, String[] args) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.HostProc.RunUsersAssembly() at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart_Context(Object state) at System.Threading.ExecutionContext.Run(ExecutionContext executionContext, ContextCallback callback, Object state) at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart() heres the code that adds and creates the LibraryStack and fills it public void ReplaceBackContent(List<Image> images, List<MediaElement> videos) { ContentControl3D control = this.TryFindParent<ContentControl3D>(); if (control == null) { return; } LibraryStack stack = new LibraryStack(); foreach (Image image in images) { if (image.Parent != null) { continue; } LibraryStackItem item = new LibraryStackItem(); item.Content = image; stack.Items.Add(item); } control.BackContent = stack; } Since it has the NotifyPartitionIsZombie error i already installed windows update KB967634 which had absolutely no effect at all

    Read the article

  • 500 Worker Threads, what kind of thread pool?

    - by Submerged
    I am wondering if this is the best way to do this. I have about 500 threads that run indefinitely, but Thread.sleep for a minute when done one cycle of processing. ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(list.size()+1); for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) { es.execute(coreAppVector.elementAt(i)); //coreAppVector is a vector of extends thread objects } The code that is executing is really simple and basically just this class aThread extends Thread { public void run(){ while(true){ Thread.sleep(ONE_MINUTE); //Lots of computation every minute } } } I do need a separate threads for each running task, so changing the architecture isn't an option. I tried making my threadPool size equal to Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() which attempted to run all 500 threads, but only let 8 (4xhyperthreading) of them execute. The other threads wouldn't surrender and let other threads have their turn. I tried putting in a wait() and notify(), but still no luck. If anyone has a simple example or some tips, I would be grateful! Well, the design is arguably flawed. The threads implement Genetic-Programming or GP, a type of learning algorithm. Each thread analyzes advanced trends makes predictions. If the thread ever completes, the learning is lost. That said, I was hoping that sleep() would allow me to share some of the resources while one thread isn't "learning"

    Read the article

  • Exception calling remote SOAP call from thread

    - by Duncan
    This is an extension / next step of this question I asked a few minutes ago. I've a Delphi application with a main form and a thread. Every X seconds the thread makes a web services request for a remote object. It then posts back to the main form which handles updating the UI with the new information. I was previously using a TTimer object in my thread, and when the TTimer callback function ran, it ran in the context of the main thread (but the remote web services request did work). This rather defeated the purpose of the separate thread, and so I now have a simple loop and sleep routine in my thread's Execute function. The problem is, an exception is thrown when returning from GetIMySOAPService(). procedure TPollingThread.Execute; var SystemStatus : TCWRSystemStatus; begin while not Terminated do begin sleep(5000); try SystemStatus := GetIMySOAPService().GetSystemStatus; PostMessage( ParentHandle, Integer(apiSystemStatus), Integer(SystemStatus), 0 ); SystemStatus.DataContext := nil; LParam(SystemStatus) := 0; except end; end; end; Can anyone advise as to why this exception is being thrown when calling this function from the thread? I'm sure I'm overlooking something fundamental and simple. Thanks, Duncan

    Read the article

  • how to restart a Thread?

    - by wizztjh
    It is a RMI Server object , so many sethumanActivity() might be run , how do i make sure the previous changeToFalse thread will be stop or halt before the new changeToFalse run? t. interrupt ? Basically when sethumanActivity() is invoke , the humanActivity will be set to true , but a thread will be run to set it back to false. But I am thinking for how to disable or kill the thread when another sethumanActivity() invoked? public class VitaminDEngine implements VitaminD { public boolean humanActivity = false; changeToFalse cf = new changeToFalse(); Thread t = new Thread(cf); private class changeToFalse implements Runnable{ @Override public void run() { try { Thread.sleep(4000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } humanActivity = false; } } @Override public void sethumanActivity() throws RemoteException { // TODO Auto-generated method stub humanActivity = true; t.start(); } public boolean gethumanActivity() throws RemoteException { // TODO Auto-generated method stub return humanActivity; } } Edited after the help of SOer package smartOfficeJava; import java.rmi.RemoteException; import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService; import java.util.concurrent.Executors; public class VitaminDEngine implements VitaminD { public volatile boolean humanActivity = false; changeToFalse cf = new changeToFalse(); ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); private class changeToFalse implements Runnable{ @Override public void run() { try { Thread.sleep(4000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } humanActivity = false; } } @Override public synchronized void sethumanActivity() throws RemoteException { humanActivity = true; service.submit(cf); } public synchronized boolean gethumanActivity() throws RemoteException { return humanActivity; } }

    Read the article

  • python can't start a new thread

    - by Giorgos Komnino
    I am building a multi threading application. I have setup a threadPool. [ A Queue of size N and N Workers that get data from the queue] When all tasks are done I use tasks.join() where tasks is the queue . The application seems to run smoothly until suddently at some point (after 20 minutes in example) it terminates with the error thread.error: can't start new thread Any ideas? Edit: The threads are daemon Threads and the code is like: while True: t0 = time.time() keyword_statuses = DBSession.query(KeywordStatus).filter(KeywordStatus.status==0).options(joinedload(KeywordStatus.keyword)).with_lockmode("update").limit(100) if keyword_statuses.count() == 0: DBSession.commit() break for kw_status in keyword_statuses: kw_status.status = 1 DBSession.commit() t0 = time.time() w = SWorker(threads_no=32, network_server='http://192.168.1.242:8180/', keywords=keyword_statuses, cities=cities, saver=MySqlRawSave(DBSession), loglevel='debug') w.work() print 'finished' When the daemon threads are killed? When the application finishes or when the work() finishes? Look at the thread pool and the worker (it's from a recipe ) from Queue import Queue from threading import Thread, Event, current_thread import time event = Event() class Worker(Thread): """Thread executing tasks from a given tasks queue""" def __init__(self, tasks): Thread.__init__(self) self.tasks = tasks self.daemon = True self.start() def run(self): '''Start processing tasks from the queue''' while True: event.wait() #time.sleep(0.1) try: func, args, callback = self.tasks.get() except Exception, e: print str(e) return else: if callback is None: func(args) else: callback(func(args)) self.tasks.task_done() class ThreadPool: """Pool of threads consuming tasks from a queue""" def __init__(self, num_threads): self.tasks = Queue(num_threads) for _ in range(num_threads): Worker(self.tasks) def add_task(self, func, args=None, callback=None): ''''Add a task to the queue''' self.tasks.put((func, args, callback)) def wait_completion(self): '''Wait for completion of all the tasks in the queue''' self.tasks.join() def broadcast_block_event(self): '''blocks running threads''' event.clear() def broadcast_unblock_event(self): '''unblocks running threads''' event.set() def get_event(self): '''returns the event object''' return event

    Read the article

  • Android: Error trying to edit button text after thread sleep

    - by Vass
    (programming Android in Eclipse) I am trying to set up a delay in changing the text in a button. I am getting errors only after there is a delay and the text needs to be changed. Here is the simplified code without a while loop: final Button button_target = (Button) findViewById(R.id.button_target); Thread textChange = new Thread(new Runnable() { public void run(){ button_target.setText("fog"); try{ Thread.sleep(3000); }catch(InterruptedException e){} } }); textChange.start(); And now here is the code where a change of text on the button is required after the sleep which now causes and error and exit (forced): final Button button_target = (Button) findViewById(R.id.button_target); Thread textChange = new Thread(new Runnable() { public void run(){ button_target.setText("cat"); try{ Thread.sleep(3000); }catch(InterruptedException e){} button_target.setText("dog"); } }); textChange.start(); what am I doing to cause the error? Is there another method that I should do to be able to invoke a sleep or delay to the thread so that a text change operation can be performed? (the actual code has a while loop but I believe this form puts the error in highlight)

    Read the article

  • How to update GUI thread/class from worker thread/class?

    - by user315182
    First question here so hello everyone. The requirement I'm working on is a small test application that communicates with an external device over a serial port. The communication can take a long time, and the device can return all sorts of errors. The device is nicely abstracted in its own class that the GUI thread starts to run in its own thread and has the usual open/close/read data/write data basic functions. The GUI is also pretty simple - choose COM port, open, close, show data read or errors from device, allow modification and write back etc. The question is simply how to update the GUI from the device class? There are several distinct types of data the device deals with so I need a relatively generic bridge between the GUI form/thread class and the working device class/thread. In the GUI to device direction everything works fine with [Begin]Invoke calls for open/close/read/write etc. on various GUI generated events. I've read the thread here (How to update GUI from another thread in C#?) where the assumption is made that the GUI and worker thread are in the same class. Google searches throw up how to create a delegate or how to create the classic background worker but that's not at all what I need, although they may be part of the solution. So, is there a simple but generic structure that can be used? My level of C# is moderate and I've been programming all my working life, given a clue I'll figure it out (and post back)... Thanks in advance for any help.

    Read the article

  • Closing thread using ExitThread - C

    - by Jamie Keeling
    I have a simple program that creates a thread, loops twenty times and then makes a call to close itself and perform the necessary cleanup. When I debug the program it reaches the ExitThread(); method and pauses, ignoring the printf(); I have set up after it to signal to me it's closed. Is this normal or am I forgetting to do something? I'm new to threading using C. Main() void main() { Time t; int i = 0; StartTimer(); for(i = 0; i < 20; i++) { t = GetTime(); printf("%d.%.3d\n", t.seconds, t.milliseconds); Sleep(100); } StopTimer(); } Thread Creation void StartTimer() { DWORD threadId; seconds = 0; milliseconds = 0; // Create child thread hThread = CreateThread( NULL, // lpThreadAttributes (default) 0, // dwStackSize (default) ThreadFunc, // lpStartAddress NULL, // lpParameter 0, // dwCreationFlags &threadId // lpThreadId (returned by function) ); // Check child thread was created successfully if(hThread == NULL) { printf("Error creating thread\n"); } } Thread Close void StopTimer() { DWORD exitCode; if(GetExitCodeThread(hThread,&exitCode) != 0) { ExitThread(exitCode); printf("Thread closed"); if(CloseHandle(hThread)) { printf("Handle closed"); } } }

    Read the article

  • Thread synchronization and aborting.

    - by kubal5003
    Hello, I've got a little problem with ending the work of one of my threads. First things first so here's the app "layout": Thread 1 - worker thread (C++/CLI) - runs and terminates as expected for(...) { try { if(TabuStop) return; System::Threading::Monitor::Enter("Lock1"); //some work, unmanaged code } finally { if(stop) { System::Threading::Monitor::Pulse("Lock1"); } else { System::Threading::Monitor::Pulse("Lock1"); System::Threading::Monitor::Wait("Lock1"); } } } Thread 2 - display results thread (C#) while (WorkerThread.IsAlive) { lock ("Lock1") { if (TabuEngine.TabuStop) { Monitor.Pulse("Lock1"); } else { Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(RefreshAction); Monitor.Pulse("Lock1"); Monitor.Wait("Lock1", 5000); } } // Thread.Sleep(5000); } I'm trying to shut the whole thing down from app main thread like this: TabuEngine.TabuStop = true; //terminates nicely the worker thread and if (DisplayThread.IsAlive) { DisplayThread.Abort(); } I also tried using DisplayThread.Interrupt, but it always blocks on Monitor.Wait("Lock1", 5000); and I can't get rid of it. What is wrong here? How am I supposed to perform the synchronization and let it do the work that it is supposed to do? //edit I'm not even sure now if the trick with using "Lock1" string is really working and locks are placed on the same object..

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >