Search Results

Search found 2207 results on 89 pages for 'nick locking'.

Page 2/89 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Accessing the same service more than twice in the nick of time

    - by PointedC
    I have an application that will access interface service A which is to run from windows startup. This service is used by program B and my application functions on B's presence after getting a pointer to A. The scenario is translated as follows, public interface A{} ///my program public class MyProgram { public MyProgram() { ProgramB.DoA(); } public A GetA(){} } public class ProgramB { void DoA(){} } The translated source is not true, but that seems to be what I am looking for. In order to eliminate the overhead of allocating and realocating dynamic accesses to the same service used by other processes, would you please provide an actual solution to the problem ?(I am all out of any idea now)

    Read the article

  • C# Working with Locking and Threads

    - by aherrick
    Work on this small test application to learn threading/locking. I have the following code, I would think that the line should only write to console once. However it doesn't seem to be working as expected. Any thoughts on why? What I'm trying to do is add this Lot object to a List, then if any other threads try and hit that list, it would block. Am i completely misusing lock here? class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { int threadCount = 10; //spin up x number of test threads Thread[] threads = new Thread[threadCount]; Work w = new Work(); for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(w.DoWork)); } for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i].Start(); } // don't let the console close Console.ReadLine(); } } public class Work { List<Lot> lots = new List<Lot>(); private static readonly object thisLock = new object(); public void DoWork() { Lot lot = new Lot() { LotID = 1, LotNumber = "100" }; LockLot(lot); } private void LockLot(Lot lot) { // i would think that "Lot has been added" should only print once? lock (thisLock) { if(!lots.Contains(lot)) { lots.Add(lot); Console.WriteLine("Lot has been added"); } } } }

    Read the article

  • .NET Working with Locking and Threads

    - by aherrick
    Work on this small test application to learn threading/locking. I have the following code, I would think that the line should only write to console once. However it doesn't seem to be working as expected. Any thoughts on why? What I'm trying to do is add this Lot object to a List, then if any other threads try and hit that list, it would block. Am i completely misusing lock here? class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { int threadCount = 10; //spin up x number of test threads Thread[] threads = new Thread[threadCount]; Work w = new Work(); for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(w.DoWork)); } for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i].Start(); } // don't let the console close Console.ReadLine(); } } public class Work { List<Lot> lots = new List<Lot>(); private static readonly object thisLock = new object(); public void DoWork() { Lot lot = new Lot() { LotID = 1, LotNumber = "100" }; LockLot(lot); } private void LockLot(Lot lot) { // i would think that "Lot has been added" should only print once? lock (thisLock) { if(!lots.Contains(lot)) { lots.Add(lot); Console.WriteLine("Lot has been added"); } } } }

    Read the article

  • Python Locking Implementation (with threading module)

    - by Matty
    This is probably a rudimentary question, but I'm new to threaded programming in Python and am not entirely sure what the correct practice is. Should I be creating a single lock object (either globally or being passed around) and using that everywhere that I need to do locking? Or, should I be creating multiple lock instances in each of the classes where I will be employing them. Take these 2 rudimentary code samples, which direction is best to go? The main difference being that a single lock instance is used in both class A and B in the second, while multiple instances are used in the first. Sample 1 class A(): def __init__(self, theList): self.theList = theList self.lock = threading.Lock() def poll(self): while True: # do some stuff that eventually needs to work with theList self.lock.acquire() try: self.theList.append(something) finally: self.lock.release() class B(threading.Thread): def __init__(self,theList): self.theList = theList self.lock = threading.Lock() self.start() def run(self): while True: # do some stuff that eventually needs to work with theList self.lock.acquire() try: self.theList.remove(something) finally: self.lock.release() if __name__ == "__main__": aList = [] for x in range(10): B(aList) A(aList).poll() Sample 2 class A(): def __init__(self, theList,lock): self.theList = theList self.lock = lock def poll(self): while True: # do some stuff that eventually needs to work with theList self.lock.acquire() try: self.theList.append(something) finally: self.lock.release() class B(threading.Thread): def __init__(self,theList,lock): self.theList = theList self.lock = lock self.start() def run(self): while True: # do some stuff that eventually needs to work with theList self.lock.acquire() try: self.theList.remove(something) finally: self.lock.release() if __name__ == "__main__": lock = threading.Lock() aList = [] for x in range(10): B(aList,lock) A(aList,lock).poll()

    Read the article

  • Utility that helps in file locking - expert tips wanted

    - by maix
    I've written a subclass of file that a) provides methods to conveniently lock it (using fcntl, so it only supports unix, which is however OK for me atm) and b) when reading or writing asserts that the file is appropriately locked. Now I'm not an expert at such stuff (I've just read one paper [de] about it) and would appreciate some feedback: Is it secure, are there race conditions, are there other things that could be done better … Here is the code: from fcntl import flock, LOCK_EX, LOCK_SH, LOCK_UN, LOCK_NB class LockedFile(file): """ A wrapper around `file` providing locking. Requires a shared lock to read and a exclusive lock to write. Main differences: * Additional methods: lock_ex, lock_sh, unlock * Refuse to read when not locked, refuse to write when not locked exclusivly. * mode cannot be `w` since then the file would be truncated before it could be locked. You have to lock the file yourself, it won't be done for you implicitly. Only you know what lock you need. Example usage:: def get_config(): f = LockedFile(CONFIG_FILENAME, 'r') f.lock_sh() config = parse_ini(f.read()) f.close() def set_config(key, value): f = LockedFile(CONFIG_FILENAME, 'r+') f.lock_ex() config = parse_ini(f.read()) config[key] = value f.truncate() f.write(make_ini(config)) f.close() """ def __init__(self, name, mode='r', *args, **kwargs): if 'w' in mode: raise ValueError('Cannot open file in `w` mode') super(LockedFile, self).__init__(name, mode, *args, **kwargs) self.locked = None def lock_sh(self, **kwargs): """ Acquire a shared lock on the file. If the file is already locked exclusively, do nothing. :returns: Lock status from before the call (one of 'sh', 'ex', None). :param nonblocking: Don't wait for the lock to be available. """ if self.locked == 'ex': return # would implicitly remove the exclusive lock return self._lock(LOCK_SH, **kwargs) def lock_ex(self, **kwargs): """ Acquire an exclusive lock on the file. :returns: Lock status from before the call (one of 'sh', 'ex', None). :param nonblocking: Don't wait for the lock to be available. """ return self._lock(LOCK_EX, **kwargs) def unlock(self): """ Release all locks on the file. Flushes if there was an exclusive lock. :returns: Lock status from before the call (one of 'sh', 'ex', None). """ if self.locked == 'ex': self.flush() return self._lock(LOCK_UN) def _lock(self, mode, nonblocking=False): flock(self, mode | bool(nonblocking) * LOCK_NB) before = self.locked self.locked = {LOCK_SH: 'sh', LOCK_EX: 'ex', LOCK_UN: None}[mode] return before def _assert_read_lock(self): assert self.locked, "File is not locked" def _assert_write_lock(self): assert self.locked == 'ex', "File is not locked exclusively" def read(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).read(*args) def readline(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).readline(*args) def readlines(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).readlines(*args) def xreadlines(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).xreadlines(*args) def __iter__(self): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).__iter__() def next(self): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).next() def write(self, *args): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).write(*args) def writelines(self, *args): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).writelines(*args) def flush(self): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).flush() def truncate(self, *args): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).truncate(*args) def close(self): self.unlock() return super(LockedFile, self).close() (the example in the docstring is also my current use case for this) Thanks for having read until down here, and possibly even answering :)

    Read the article

  • Thread locking issue with FileHelpers between calling engine.ReadNext() method and readign engine.Li

    - by Rad
    I use producer/consumer pattern with FileHelpers library to import data from one file (which can be huge) using multiple threads. Each thread is supposed to import a chunk of that file and I would like to use LineNumber property of the FileHelperAsyncEngine instance that is reading the file as primary key for imported rows. FileHelperAsyncEngine internally has an IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator(); which is iterated over using engine.ReadNext() method. That internally sets LineNumber property (which seems is not thread safe). Consumers will have Producers assiciated with them that will supply DataTables to Consumers which will consume them via SqlBulkLoad class which will use IDataReader implementation which will iterate over a collection of DataTables which are internal to a Consumer instance. Each instance of will have one SqlBulkCopy instance associate with it. I have thread locking issue. Below is how I create multiple Producer threads. I start each thread afterwords. Produce method on a producer instance will be called determining which chunk of input file will be processed. It seems that engine.LineNumber is not thread safe and I doesn't import a proper LineNumber in the database. It seems that by the time engine.LineNumber is read some other thread called engine.ReadNext() and changed engine.LineNumber property. I don't want to lock the loop that is supposed to process a chunk of input file because I loose parallelism. How to reorganize the code to solve this threading issue? Thanks Rad for (int i = 0; i < numberOfProducerThreads; i++) DataConsumer consumer = dataConsumers[i]; //create a new producer DataProducer producer = new DataProducer(); //consumer has already being created consumer.Subscribe(producer); FileHelperAsyncEngine orderDetailEngine = new FileHelperAsyncEngine(recordType); orderDetailEngine.Options.RecordCondition.Condition = RecordCondition.ExcludeIfBegins; orderDetailEngine.Options.RecordCondition.Selector = STR_ORDR; int skipLines = i * numberOfBufferTablesToProcess * DataBuffer.MaxBufferRowCount; Thread newThread = new Thread(() => { producer.Produce(consumer, inputFilePath, lineNumberFieldName, dict, orderDetailEngine, skipLines, numberOfBufferTablesToProcess); consumer.SetEndOfData(producer); }); producerThreads.Add(newThread); thread.Start();} public void Produce(DataConsumer consumer, string inputFilePath, string lineNumberFieldName, Dictionary<string, object> dict, FileHelperAsyncEngine engine, int skipLines, int numberOfBufferTablesToProcess) { lock (this) { engine.Options.IgnoreFirstLines = skipLines; engine.BeginReadFile(inputFilePath); } int rowCount = 1; DataTable buffer = consumer.BufferDataTable; while (engine.ReadNext() != null) { lock (this) { dict[lineNumberFieldName] = engine.LineNumber; buffer.Rows.Add(ObjectFieldsDataRowMapper.MapObjectFieldsToDataRow(engine.LastRecord, dict, buffer)); if (rowCount % DataBuffer.MaxBufferRowCount == 0) { consumer.AddBufferDataTable(buffer); buffer = consumer.BufferDataTable; } if (rowCount % (numberOfBufferTablesToProcess * DataBuffer.MaxBufferRowCount) == 0) { break; } rowCount++; } } if (buffer.Rows.Count > 0) { consumer.AddBufferDataTable(buffer); } engine.Close(); }

    Read the article

  • SQLite file locking and DropBox

    - by Alex Jenter
    I'm developing an app in Visual C++ that uses an SQLite3 DB for storing data. Usually it sits in the tray most of the time. I also would like to enable putting my app in a DropBox folder to share it across several PCs. It worked really well up until DropBox has recently updated itself. And now it says that it "can't sync the file in use". The SQLite file is open in my app, but the lock is shared. There are some prepared statements, but all are reset immediately after using step. Is there any way to enable synchronizing of an open SQLite database file? Thanks! Here is the simple wrapper that I use just for testing (no error handling), in case this helps: class Statement { private: Statement(sqlite3* db, const std::wstring& sql) : db(db) { sqlite3_prepare16_v2(db, sql.c_str(), sql.length() * sizeof(wchar_t), &stmt, NULL); } public: ~Statement() { sqlite3_finalize(stmt); } public: void reset() { sqlite3_reset(stmt); } int step() { return sqlite3_step(stmt); } int getInt(int i) const { return sqlite3_column_int(stmt, i); } tstring getText(int i) const { const wchar_t* v = (const wchar_t*)sqlite3_column_text16(stmt, i); int sz = sqlite3_column_bytes16(stmt, i) / sizeof(wchar_t); return std::wstring(v, v + sz); } private: friend class Database; sqlite3* db; sqlite3_stmt* stmt; }; class Database { public: Database(const std::wstring& filename = L"")) : db(NULL) { sqlite3_open16(filename.c_str(), &db); } ~Database() { sqlite3_close(db); } void exec(const std::wstring& sql) { auto_ptr<Statement> st(prepare(sql)); st->step(); } auto_ptr<Statement> prepare(const tstring& sql) const { return auto_ptr<Statement>(new Statement(db, sql)); } private: sqlite3* db; };

    Read the article

  • Column locking in innodb?

    - by ming yeow
    I know this sounds weird, but apparently one of my columns is locked. select * from table where type_id = 1 and updated_at < '2010-03-14' limit 1; select * from table where type_id = 3 and updated_at < '2010-03-14' limit 10; the first one would not finish running even in a few hours, while the second one completes smoothly. the only difference is the type_id between the 2 queries. a bit of background, the first statement screwed up before which i had to kill manually. Thanks in advance for your help - i have an urgent data job to finish, and this problem is driving me crazy

    Read the article

  • Locking on an object...

    - by Mystere Man
    I often see code like that which is shown here, ie where an object is allocated and then used as a "lock object". It seems to me that you could use any object for this, including the event itself as the lock object. Why allocate a new object that does nothing? My understanding is that calling lock() on an object doesn't actually alter the object itself, nor does it actually lock it from being used, it's simply used as a placeholder for multiple lock statements to anchor on. So my question is, is this really a good thing to do?

    Read the article

  • Locking behaviour is different via network shares

    - by MattH
    I have been trying to lock a file so that other cloned services cannot access the file. I then read the file, and then move the file when finished. The Move is allowed by using FileShare.Delete. However in later testing, we found that this approach does not work if we are looking at a network share. I appreciate my approach may not have been the best, but my specific question is: Why does the below demo work against the local file, but not against the network file? The more specific you can be the better, as I've found very little information in my searches that indicates network shares behave differently to local disks. string sourceFile = @"C:\TestFile.txt"; string localPath = @"C:\MyLocalFolder\TestFile.txt"; string networkPath = @"\\MyMachine\MyNetworkFolder\TestFile.txt"; File.WriteAllText(sourceFile, "Test data"); if (!File.Exists(localPath)) File.Copy(sourceFile, localPath); foreach (string path in new string[] { localPath, networkPath }) { using (FileStream fsLock = File.Open(path, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.ReadWrite, (FileShare.Read | FileShare.Delete))) { string target = path + ".out"; File.Move(path, target); //This is the point of failure, when working with networkPath if (File.Exists(target)) File.Delete(target); } if (!File.Exists(path)) File.Copy(sourceFile, path); }

    Read the article

  • SQLserver multithreaded locking with TABLOCKX

    - by WilfriedVS
    I have a table "tbluser" with 2 fields: userid = integer (autoincrement) user = nvarchar(100) I have a multithreaded/multi server application that uses this table. I want to accomplish the following: Guarantee that field user is unique in my table Guarantee that combination userid/user is unique in each server's memory I have the following stored procedure: CREATE PROCEDURE uniqueuser @user nvarchar(100) AS BEGIN BEGIN TRAN DECLARE @userID int SET nocount ON SET @userID = (SELECT @userID FROM tbluser WITH (TABLOCKX) WHERE [user] = @user) IF @userID <> '' BEGIN SELECT userID = @userID END ELSE BEGIN INSERT INTO tbluser([user]) VALUES (@user) SELECT userID = SCOPE_IDENTITY() END COMMIT TRAN END Basically the application calls the stored procedure and provides a username as parameter. The stored procedure either gets the userid or insert the user if it is a new user. Am I correct to assume that the table is locked (only one server can insert/query)?

    Read the article

  • MySQL locking problem

    - by teehoo
    I have a simple setup of a set of writers and a set of readers working with a MySQL ISAM table. The writers are only inserting rows while the readers are only checking for new rows. OK, so I know that I don't need a lock in this situation, since I'm not modifying existing rows. However my Writers are accessing one more table that does need a lock. I piece of information seems irrelevant except for the following limitation stated in the MySQL documentation: A session that requires locks must acquire all the locks that it needs in a single LOCK TABLES statement. While the locks thus obtained are held, the session can access only the locked tables. For example, in the following sequence of statements, an error occurs for the attempt to access t2 because it was not locked in the LOCK TABLES statement: So to access the table I want to insert rows into, I NEED to lock it, which is causing me performance problems. Any suggestions of how to get around this?

    Read the article

  • locking database record for editing

    - by sd_dracula
    I have a SQL 2008 DB and an asp.net frontend. I would like to implement a lock when a user is currently editing a record but unsure of which is the best approach. My idea is to have a isLocked column for the records and it gets set to true when a user pulls that record, meaning all other users have read only access until the first user finishes the editing. However, what if the session times out and he/she never saves/updates the record, the record will remain with isLocked = true, meaning others cannot edit it, right? How can I implement some sort of session time out and have isLocked be automatically set to false when the session times out (or after a predefined period) Should this be implemented on the asp.net side or the SQL side?

    Read the article

  • Pessimistic locking is not working with Query API

    - by Reddy
    List esns=session.createQuery("from Pool e where e.status=:status "+ "order by uuid asc") .setString("status", "AVAILABLE") .setMaxResults(n) .setLockMode("e", LockMode.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE) .list(); I have the above query written, however it is not generating for update query and simultaneous updates are happening. I am using 3.5.2 version and it has a bug in Criteria API, is the same bug present in query API as well or I am doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • Explain the code: c# locking feature and threads

    - by Mendy
    I used this pattern in a few projects, (this snipped of code is from CodeCampServer), I understand what it does, but I'm really interesting in an explanation about this pattern. Specifically: Why is the double check of _dependenciesRegistered. Why to use lock (Lock){}. Thanks. public class DependencyRegistrarModule : IHttpModule { private static bool _dependenciesRegistered; private static readonly object Lock = new object(); public void Init(HttpApplication context) { context.BeginRequest += context_BeginRequest; } public void Dispose() { } private static void context_BeginRequest(object sender, EventArgs e) { EnsureDependenciesRegistered(); } private static void EnsureDependenciesRegistered() { if (!_dependenciesRegistered) { lock (Lock) { if (!_dependenciesRegistered) { new DependencyRegistrar().ConfigureOnStartup(); _dependenciesRegistered = true; } } } } }

    Read the article

  • Strange Locking Behaviour in SQL Server 2005

    - by SQL Learner
    Can anyone please tell me why does the following statement inside a given stored procedure returns repeated results even with locks on the rows used by the first SELECT statement? BEGIN TRANSACTION DECLARE @Temp TABLE ( ID INT ) INSERT INTO @Temp SELECT ID FROM SomeTable WITH (ROWLOCK, UPDLOCK, READPAST) WHERE SomeValue <= 10 INSERT INTO @Temp SELECT ID FROM SomeTable WITH (ROWLOCK, UPDLOCK, READPAST) WHERE SomeValue >= 5 SELECT * FROM @Temp COMMIT TRANSACTION Any values in SomeTable for which SomeValue is between 5 and 10 will be returned twice, even though they were locked in the first SELECT. I thought that locks were in place for the whole transaction, and so I wasn't expecting the query to return repeated results. Why is this happening?

    Read the article

  • Basics of SQL Server 2008 Locking

    Relational databases are designed for multiple simultaneous users, and Microsoft SQL Server is no different. However, supporting multiple users requires some form of concurrency control, which in SQL Server's case means transaction isolation and locking. Read on to learn how SQL Server 2008 implements locking.

    Read the article

  • Basics of SQL Server 2008 Locking

    Relational databases are designed for multiple simultaneous users, and Microsoft SQL Server is no different. However, supporting multiple users requires some form of concurrency control, which in SQL Server's case means transaction isolation and locking. Read on to learn how SQL Server 2008 implements locking.

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to Pessimistic Locking in Cluster Applications

    - by amphibient
    I am researching alternatives to database-level pessimistic locking to achieve transaction isolation in a cluster of Java applications going against the same database. Synchronizing concurrent access in the application tier is clearly not a solution in the present configuration because the same database transaction can be invoked from multiple JVMs concurrently. Currently, we are subject to occasional race conditions which, due to the optimistic locking we have in place via Hibernate, cause a StaleObjectStateException exception and data loss. I have a moderately large transaction within the scope of my refactoring project. Let's describe it as updating one top-level table row and then making various related inserts and/or updates to several of its child entities. I would like to insure exclusive access to the top-level table row and all of the children to be affected but I would like to stay away from pessimistic locking at the database level for performance reasons mostly. We use Hibernate for ORM. Does it make sense to start a single (perhaps synchronous) message queue application into which this method could be moved to insure synchronized access as opposed to each cluster node using its own, which is a clear race condition hazard? I am mentioning this approach even though I am not confident in it because both the top-level table row and its children could also be updated from other system calls, not just the mentioned transaction. So I am seeking to design a solution where the top-level table row and its children will all somehow be pseudo-locked (exclusive transaction isolation) but at the application and not the database level. I am open to ideas and suggestions, I understand this is not a very cut and dried challenge.

    Read the article

  • Partial upgrade on 12.04, how to stop nagging after locking to a working NVIDIA & xorg

    - by alsk
    How to stop the upgrade manager from offering updates and upgrades that potentially would harm my working 2D and 3D graphics? Finally, I got 12.04 working as it should: with nvidia-173 drivers by downgrading xorg and locking the version: On my 32-bit system on Athlon64, with (Albatron) NVIDIA GeForce FX5700XT, locked (/pinned) to xorg 1:7.6-7ubuntu7, xserver-xorg-core 2:11.1-0obuntu10.07, nvidia-173 173.14.35-0ubuntu0.2? An annoying thing left is that every time the updates are checked, I get warning of partial updates, and ambiguous options of "partial update" and "close". Ambiguous in that sense that if I click close, I will get option to update a few packages, which has been OK, while "partial update" would like to update my kernel to 3.2, alter xorg, remove nvidia-173 etc., and update mesa etc. This is not what I call appropriate, after locking XORG and NVIDIA drivers to working ones. One may say according to package management logic it may be correct, but to me as an user it makes little sense. Last Ubuntu that worked without big mess for me was 10.10, hence I will not put 12.10 to my "production" system, until I can be sure it will not trash the system again. P.S. Is there a recommended way to keep NVIDIA GeForce FX working with 3D on Ubuntu... in future?

    Read the article

  • Using the Coherence ConcurrentMap Interface (Locking API)

    - by jpurdy
    For many developers using Coherence, the first place they look for concurrency control is the com.tangosol.util.ConcurrentMap interface (part of the NamedCache interface). The ConcurrentMap interface includes methods for explicitly locking data. Despite the obvious appeal of a lock-based API, these methods should generally be avoided for a variety of reasons: They are very "chatty" in that they can't be bundled with other operations (such as get and put) and there are no collection-based versions of them. Locks do directly not impact mutating calls (including puts and entry processors), so all code must make explicit lock requests before modifying (or in some cases reading) cache entries. They require coordination of all code that may mutate the objects, including the need to lock at the same level of granularity (there is no built-in lock hierarchy and thus no concept of lock escalation). Even if all code is properly coordinated (or there's only one piece of code), failure during updates that may leave a collection of changes to a set of objects in a partially committed state. There is no concept of a read-only lock. In general, use of locking is highly discouraged for most applications. Instead, the use of entry processors provides a far more efficient approach, at the cost of some additional complexity.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >