Search Results

Search found 4621 results on 185 pages for 'scott lock'.

Page 21/185 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • Turning on screen programmatically

    - by Matroska
    Hi, I would like to unlock screen and switching it on to show a popup on an event trigger. I am able to unlock the screen using newKeyguardLock = km.newKeyguardLock(HANDSFREE); newKeyguardLock.disableKeyguard(); on KeyGuardService but I cannot turn on the screen. I am using wl = pm.newWakeLock(PowerManager.SCREEN_BRIGHT_WAKE_LOCK, HANDSFREE); wl.acquire(); but with no success. The screen still remains off. How can I achieve this? Thanks in advance. Tobia Loschiavo

    Read the article

  • Concurency issues with scheduling app

    - by Sazug
    Our application needs a simple scheduling mechanism - we can schedule only one visit per room for the same time interval (but one visit can be using one or more rooms). Using SQL Server 2005, sample procedure could look like this: CREATE PROCEDURE CreateVisit @start datetime, @end datetime, @roomID int AS BEGIN DECLARE @isFreeRoom INT BEGIN TRANSACTION SELECT @isFreeRoom = COUNT(*) FROM visits V INNER JOIN visits_rooms VR on VR.VisitID = V.ID WHERE @start = start AND @end = [end] AND VR.RoomID = @roomID IF (@isFreeRoom = 0) BEGIN INSERT INTO visits (start, [end]) VALUES (@start, @end) INSERT INTO visits_rooms (visitID, roomID) VALUES (SCOPE_IDENTITY(), @roomID) END COMMIT TRANSACTION END In order to not have the same room scheduled for two visits at the same time, how should we handle this problem in procedure? Should we use SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation level or maybe use table hints (locks)? Which one is better?

    Read the article

  • DataReader Behaviour With SQL Server Locking

    - by Graham
    We are having some issues with our data layer when large datasets are returned from a SQL server query via a DataReader. As we use the DataReader to populate business objects and serialize them back to the client, the fetch can take several minutes (we are showing progress to the user :-)), but we've found that there's some pretty hard-core locking going on on the affected tables which is causing other updates to be blocked. So I guess my slightly naive question is, at what point are the locks which are taken out as a result of executing the query actually relinquished? We seem to be finding that the locks are remaining until the last row of the DataReader has been processed and the DataReader is actually closed - does that seem correct? A quick 101 on how the DataReader works behind the scenes would be great as I've struggled to find any decent information on it. I should say that I realise the locking issues are the main concern but I'm just concerned with the behaviour of the DataReader here.

    Read the article

  • Python - question regarding the concurrent use of `multiprocess`.

    - by orokusaki
    I want to use Python's multiprocessing to do concurrent processing without using locks (locks to me are the opposite of multiprocessing) because I want to build up multiple reports from different resources at the exact same time during a web request (normally takes about 3 seconds but with multiprocessing I can do it in .5 seconds). My problem is that, if I expose such a feature to the web and get 10 users pulling the same report at the same time, I suddenly have 60 interpreters open at the same time (which would crash the system). Is this just the common sense result of using multiprocessing, or is there a trick to get around this potential nightmare? Thanks

    Read the article

  • HttpURLConnection getting locked

    - by Nayn
    Hi, I have a thread running under tomcat which creates a HttpUrlConnection and reads it through BufferedInputStream. After fetching data for some urls, it stalls. I got the jstack of the process which says HttpUrlConnection is locked and BufferedInputStream is also locked. "http-8080-1" daemon prio=10 tid=0x08683400 nid=0x79c9 runnable [0x8f618000] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.net.SocketInputStream.socketRead0(Native Method) at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:129) at java.io.BufferedInputStream.fill(BufferedInputStream.java:218) at java.io.BufferedInputStream.read1(BufferedInputStream.java:258) at java.io.BufferedInputStream.read(BufferedInputStream.java:317) - locked <0x956ef8c0> (a java.io.BufferedInputStream) at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.parseHTTPHeader(HttpClient.java:687) at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.parseHTTP(HttpClient.java:632) at sun.net.www.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.getInputStream(HttpURLConnection.java:1072) - locked <0x956ef910> (a sun.net.www.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection) Could somebody help here. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Impossible to be const-correct when combining data and it's lock?

    - by Graeme
    I've been looking at ways to combine a piece of data which will be accessed by multiple threads alongside the lock provisioned for thread-safety. I think I've got to a point where I don't think its possible to do this whilst maintaining const-correctness. Take the following class for example: template <typename TType, typename TMutex> class basic_lockable_type { public: typedef TMutex lock_type; public: template <typename... TArgs> explicit basic_lockable_type(TArgs&&... args) : TType(std::forward<TArgs...>(args)...) {} TType& data() { return data_; } const TType& data() const { return data_; } void lock() { mutex_.lock(); } void unlock() { mutex_.unlock(); } private: TType data_; mutable TMutex mutex_; }; typedef basic_lockable_type<std::vector<int>, std::mutex> vector_with_lock; In this I try to combine the data and lock, marking mutex_ as mutable. Unfortunately this isn't enough as I see it because when used, vector_with_lock would have to be marked as mutable in order for a read operation to be performed from a const function which isn't entirely correct (data_ should be mutable from a const). void print_values() const { std::lock_guard<vector_with_lock>(values_); for(const int val : values_) { std::cout << val << std::endl; } } vector_with_lock values_; Can anyone see anyway around this such that const-correctness is maintained whilst combining data and lock? Also, have I made any incorrect assumptions here?

    Read the article

  • Implicit Memory Barriers

    - by foo
    let's say i have variables A, B and C that two threads (T1, T2) share. i have the following code: //T1 //~~ A = 1; B = 1; C = 1; InterlockedExchange(ref Foo, 1); //T2 (executes AFTER T1 calls InterlockedExchange) //~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ InterlockedExchange(ref Bar, 1); WriteLine(A); WriteLine(B); WriteLine(C); Question: does calling InterlockedExchange (implicit full fence) on T1 and T2, gurentess that T2 will "See" the write done by T1 before the fence? (A, B and C variables), even though those variables are not plance on the same cache-line as Foo and Bar?

    Read the article

  • Can I tell if the iPhone has a passcode?

    - by tewha
    I'm developing an application that asks for a PIN when you start it. That's not great, but I can live with it. The problem is I'm being asked to ask for the PIN each time the phone wakes from sleep, too. Combined with the OS asking for its passcode, it's too much. Is there any legitimate way to detect if the phone has a passcode required for waking, so I can skip requiring a PIN in this case? I don't want to know the PIN and I don't actually care if it was locked (for instance, if the phone was asleep very briefly), I just want to know that the data is in some way "protected."

    Read the article

  • How to issue SQL Server lock hints in WCF Entity Framework?

    - by TMN
    I'm just learning the WCF entity framework (and .net in general), and I'm running into a problem specifying lock hints in an embedded SQL query. I'm trying to specify a query that has lock hints in it (e.g., "SELECT * FROM xyz WITH(XLOCK, ROWLOCK)") and I keep getting errors from the runtime that the query syntax is not valid. The query works if I enter it directly into SQL Server. Is there some special syntax for lock hints when creating IQueryable result sets, or do I have to somehow mess with the transaction isolation level (probably not possible, as I need to specify different lock hints on a subquery within the main query).

    Read the article

  • Programming powering off and powering on in one single OnClick function on android

    - by user1060919
    I would like to write an activity that after clicking on a button turns off the screen and then turns it back on after 2 secs. I tried using the following code in order to power off the screen: WindowManager.LayoutParams lp = getWindow().getAttributes(); lp.screenBrightness = 0/(float)255; getWindow().setAttributes(lp); But it would only take effect when then onClick function returns. I tried running it into a handler but with no success. I need to find a way to force the setting to get applied before the function returns so that I can call the power on function 2 secs later on the same onClick call. I also found it very hard to wakeup the device afterwards. While this code works if I power off the screen using the physical button it doesn't seem to work when the phone is powered off using the technique described previously. PowerManager pm = (PowerManager)this.getSystemService(Context.POWER_SERVICE); PowerManager.WakeLock wl = pm.newWakeLock(PowerManager.FULL_WAKE_LOCK|PowerManager.ACQUIRE_CAUSES_WAKEUP | PowerManager.ON_AFTER_RELEASE ,"Dev Tag"); try { wl.acquire(); wl.release(); } catch (Exception e) { Toast.makeText(this, e.getMessage(),20).show(); } Thanks you in advance for your help!

    Read the article

  • Subsonic: Select on a View, locks the table update?

    - by Jay
    Hi, I have a Web site live and running now. I am using the Subsonic to handle the database connections etc. I am getting time out expired error while updating a table (say Employee). When I check sp_who2, I see the suspended connection for the PID which is updating with a block by anothor pid, so I run the profiler and found out when ever this suspended connection occur, the blocked pid is a select statement on the view (say ActiveEmployees, which is the same as the table but with some where conditions). Anyone know why a Select statement on the view could cause failure in update. If it is other (like select fails due to update) may be reasonable. Is there any way for me to make select on a view without locking the table? PS: I am using the Sql server 2005 and subsonic 2.2. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why won't Heroku accept my Gemfile.lock in Windows?

    - by mranders
    I have a rails application that I deploy on Heroku. I'm using several different machines, and I noticed that when I add new dependencies (so that Gemfile.lock is rebuilt) and do bundle install on my Windows computer at home, push to Heroku fails with the following error: Unresolved dependencies detected; Installing... Windows Gemfile.lock detected, ignoring it. You have modified your Gemfile in development but did not check the resulting snapshot (Gemfile.lock) into version control ... Gemfile.lock IS under version control, but Heroku appearently chooses to ignore it since it's created in Windows, and then complains that it's missing seconds later. Why does this happen? And how can I solve it?

    Read the article

  • What is better and why to use List as thread safe: BlockingCollection or ReaderWriterLockSlim or lock?

    - by theateist
    I have System.Collections.Generic.List _myList and many threads can read from it or add items to it simultaneously. From what I've read I should using 'BlockingCollection' so this will work. I also read about ReaderWriterLockSlim' and 'lock', but I don't figure out how to use them instead ofBlockingCollection`, so my question is can I do the same with: ReaderWriterLockSlim lock instead of using 'BlockingCollection'. If YES, can you please provide simple example and what pros and cons of using BlockingCollection, ReaderWriterLockSlim, lock?

    Read the article

  • What happens if you break out of a Lock() statement?

    - by cyclotis04
    I'm writing a program which listens to an incoming TcpClient and handles data when it arrives. The Listen() method is run on a separate thread within the component, so it needs to be threadsafe. If I break out of a do while loop while I'm within a lock() statement, will the lock be released? If not, how do I accomplish this? Thanks! (Any other advice on the subject of Asynchronous TCP Sockets is welcome as well.) private void Listen() { do { lock (_client) { if (!_client.Connected) break; lock (_stateLock) { if (!_listening) break; if (_client.GetStream().DataAvailable) HandleData(); } } Thread.Sleep(0); } while (true); }

    Read the article

  • creating a static vb.net "app" that consist of a single picture

    - by michael
    I need to create a vb.net program that consists of a unmovable, always on top bitmap, with no menu bar or anything, and does not show up in the task bar as program. It needs to always start in the same place. Essentially I need to mask a part of the screen by using a bitmap that blends into the scenery. I am not sure which properties I need to tweak to achieve all of this.

    Read the article

  • Editing files without race conditions?

    - by user2569445
    I have a CSV file that needs to be edited by multiple processes at the same time. My question is, how can I do this without introducing race conditions? It's easy to write to the end of the file without race conditions by open(2)ing it in "a" (O_APPEND) mode and simply write to it. Things get more difficult when removing lines from the file. The easiest solution is to read the file into memory, make changes to it, and overwrite it back to the file. If another process writes to it after it is in memory, however, that new data will be lost upon overwriting. To further complicate matters, my platform does not support POSIX record locks, checking for file existence is a race condition waiting to happen, rename(2) replaces the destination file if it exists instead of failing, and editing files in-place leaves empty bytes in it unless the remaining bytes are shifted towards the beginning of the file. My idea for removing a line is this (in pseudocode): filename = "/home/user/somefile"; file = open(filename, "r"); tmp = open(filename+".tmp", "ax") || die("could not create tmp file"); //"a" is O_APPEND, "x" is O_EXCL|O_CREAT while(write(tmp, read(file)); //copy the $file to $file+".new" close(file); //edit tmp file unlink(filename) || die("could not unlink file"); file = open(filename, "wx") || die("another process must have written to the file after we copied it."); //"w" is overwrite, "x" is force file creation while(write(file, read(tmp))); //copy ".tmp" back to the original file unlink(filename+".tmp") || die("could not unlink tmp file"); Or would I be better off with a simple lock file? Appender process: lock = open(filename+".lock", "wx") || die("could not lock file"); file = open(filename, "a"); write(file, "stuff"); close(file); close(lock); unlink(filename+".lock"); Editor process: lock = open(filename+".lock", "wx") || die("could not lock file"); file = open(filename, "rw"); while(contents += read(file)); //edit "contents" write(file, contents); close(file); close(lock); unlink(filename+".lock"); Both of these rely on an additional file that will be left over if a process terminates before unlinking it, causing other processes to refuse to write to the original file. In my opinion, these problems are brought on by the fact that the OS allows multiple writable file descriptors to be opened on the same file at the same time, instead of failing if a writable file descriptor is already open. It seems that O_CREAT|O_EXCL is the closest thing to a real solution for preventing filesystem race conditions, aside from POSIX record locks. Another possible solution is to separate the file into multiple files and directories, so that more granular control can be gained over components (lines, fields) of the file using O_CREAT|O_EXCL. For example, "file/$id/$field" would contain the value of column $field of the line $id. It wouldn't be a CSV file anymore, but it might just work. Yes, I know I should be using a database for this as databases are built to handle these types of problems, but the program is relatively simple and I was hoping to avoid the overhead. So, would any of these patterns work? Is there a better way? Any insight into these kinds of problems would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Lightweight spinlocks built from GCC atomic operations?

    - by Thomas
    I'd like to minimize synchronization and write lock-free code when possible in a project of mine. When absolutely necessary I'd love to substitute light-weight spinlocks built from atomic operations for pthread and win32 mutex locks. My understanding is that these are system calls underneath and could cause a context switch (which may be unnecessary for very quick critical sections where simply spinning a few times would be preferable). The atomic operations I'm referring to are well documented here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.4.1/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html Here is an example to illustrate what I'm talking about. Imagine a RB-tree with multiple readers and writers possible. RBTree::exists() is read-only and thread safe, RBTree::insert() would require exclusive access by a single writer (and no readers) to be safe. Some code: class IntSetTest { private: unsigned short lock; RBTree<int>* myset; public: // ... void add_number(int n) { // Aquire once locked==false (atomic) while (__sync_bool_compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, 0xffff) == false); // Perform a thread-unsafe operation on the set myset->insert(n); // Unlock (atomic) __sync_bool_compare_and_swap(&lock, 0xffff, 0); } bool check_number(int n) { // Increment once the lock is below 0xffff u16 savedlock = lock; while (savedlock == 0xffff || __sync_bool_compare_and_swap(&lock, savedlock, savedlock+1) == false) savedlock = lock; // Perform read-only operation bool exists = tree->exists(n); // Decrement savedlock = lock; while (__sync_bool_compare_and_swap(&lock, savedlock, savedlock-1) == false) savedlock = lock; return exists; } }; (lets assume it need not be exception-safe) Is this code indeed thread-safe? Are there any pros/cons to this idea? Any advice? Is the use of spinlocks like this a bad idea if the threads are not truly concurrent? Thanks in advance. ;)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >