Search Results

Search found 3635 results on 146 pages for 'concurrent collections'.

Page 23/146 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • VB.net: Is my Thread Safe List Solution actually safe?

    - by Shiftbit
    I've added teh following Extensions to my Project in order to create a thread safe list: Extensions If I want to conduct a simple operation on my list <Extension()> _ Public Sub Action(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T), ByVal action As Action(Of List(Of T))) SyncLock (list) action(list) End SyncLock End Sub If I want to pass it more than one parameter I could simply extend it with more items... <Extension()> _ Public Sub Action(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T), ByVal action As Action(Of List(Of T), T), ByVal item As T) SyncLock (list) Action(list, item) End SyncLock End Sub Actions I have created the following Action Examples: Private Sub Read(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T)) Console.WriteLine("Read") For Each item As T In list Console.WriteLine(item.ToString) Thread.Sleep(10) Next End Sub and also one that takes a parameter: Private Sub Write(Of T)(ByVal list As List(Of T), ByVal item As T) Thread.Sleep(100) list.Add(item) Console.WriteLine("Write") End Sub Initiating Then in my various threads I will call my Actions with: list.Action(AddressOf Read) or list.Action(AddressOf Write2, 10) Are these Extenxion methods thread safe or do you have other recommendations?

    Read the article

  • What is a practical, real world example of the Linked List?

    - by JStims
    I understand the definition of a Linked List, but how can it be represented and related to a common concept or item? For example, inheritance in OOP can be related to automobiles. All (most) automobiles in real life are the essentially same thing; an automobile has an Engine, you can start() it, you can make the car go(), stop() and so on. An automobile would typically have a maximum passenger capacity but it would differ between a Bus and a SportsCar, which are both automobiles. Is there some real life, intuitive example of the plain ole' singly Linked List like we have with inheritance? The typical textbook Linked List example shows a node with an integer and a pointer to the next, and it just doesn't seem very useful. Your input is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to work threading with ConcurrentQueue<T>.

    - by dboarman
    I am trying to figure out what the best way of working with a queue will be. I have a process that returns a DataTable. Each DataTable, in turn, is merged with the previous DataTable. There is one problem, too many records to hold until the final BulkCopy (OutOfMemory). So, I have determined that I should process each incoming DataTable immediately. Thinking about the ConcurrentQueue<T>...but I don't see how the WriteQueuedData() method would know to dequeue a table and write it to the database. For instance: public class TableTransporter { private ConcurrentQueue<DataTable> tableQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<DataTable>(); public TableTransporter() { tableQueue.OnItemQueued += new EventHandler(WriteQueuedData); // no events available } public void ExtractData() { DataTable table; // perform data extraction tableQueue.Enqueue(table); } private void WriteQueuedData(object sender, EventArgs e) { BulkCopy(e.Table); } } My first question is, aside from the fact that I don't actually have any events to subscribe to, if I call ExtractData() asynchronously will this be all that I need? Second, is there something I'm missing about the way ConcurrentQueue<T> functions and needing some form of trigger to work asynchronously with the queued objects?

    Read the article

  • Create and populate two-dimensional array in Scala

    - by ~asteinlein
    What's the recommended way of creating a pre-populated two-dimensional array in Scala? I've got the following code: val map = for { x <- (1 to size).toList } yield for { y <- (1 to size).toList } yield (x, y) How do I make an array instead of list? Replacing .toList with .toArray doesn't compile. And is there a more concise or readable way of doing this than the nested for expressions?

    Read the article

  • Clojure: seq (cons) vs. list (conj)

    - by dbyrne
    I know that cons returns a seq and conj returns a collection. I also know that conj "adds" the item to the optimal end of the collection, and cons always "adds" the item to the front. This example illustrates both of these points: user=> (conj [1 2 3] 4) //returns a collection [1 2 3 4] user=> (cons 4 [1 2 3]) //returns a seq (4 1 2 3) For vectors, maps, and sets these differences make sense to me. However, for lists they seem identical. user=> (conj '(3 2 1) 4) (4 3 2 1) user=> (cons 4 '(3 2 1)) (4 3 2 1) Are there any examples using lists where conj vs. cons exhibit different behaviors, or are they truly interchangeable? Phrased differently, is there an example where a list and a seq cannot be used equivalently?

    Read the article

  • Quickly retrieve the subset of properties used in a huge collection in C#

    - by ccornet
    I have a huge Collection (which I can cast as an enumerable using OfType<()) of objects. Each of these objects has a Category property, which is drawn from a list somewhere else in the application. This Collection can reach sizes of hundreds of items, but it is possible that only, say, 6/30 of the possible Categories are actually used. What is the fastest method to find these 6 Categories? The size of the huge Collection discourages me from just iterating across the entire thing and returning all unique values, so is there a faster method of accomplishing this? Ideally I'd collect the categories into a List.

    Read the article

  • Recreating a Dictionary from an IEnumerable

    - by learnerplates
    But some of the callers is the Dictionary's TryGetValue and ContainsKey and so require the result of the method to be a Dictionary, how can I convert the IEnumerable into a Dictionary so that I can use TryGetValue ? I've a method which at present returns an IEnumerable. I want to make it more generic by making it return an IEnumerable. method: public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, ArrayList>> GetComponents() { // ... yield return new KeyValuePair<string, ArrayList>(t.Name, controlInformation); } caller: Dictionary<string, ArrayList> actual = target.GetComponents(); actual.ContainsKey("something");

    Read the article

  • Unchecked call to compareTo

    - by Dave Jarvis
    Background Create a Map that can be sorted by value. Problem The code executes as expected, but does not compile cleanly: http://pastebin.com/bWhbHQmT The syntax for passing Comparable as a generic parameter along to the Map.Entry<K, V> (where V must be Comparable?) -- so that the (Comparable) typecast shown in the warning can be dropped -- eludes me. Warning Compiler's cantankerous complaint: SortableValueMap.java:24: warning: [unchecked] unchecked call to compareTo(T) as a member of the raw type java.lang.Comparable return ((Comparable)entry1.getValue()).compareTo( entry2.getValue() ); Question How can the code be changed to compile without any warnings (without suppressing them while compiling with -Xlint:unchecked)? Related TreeMap sort by value How to sort a Map on the values in Java? http://paaloliver.wordpress.com/2006/01/24/sorting-maps-in-java/ Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Is there a SortedList<T> class in .net ? (not SortedList<Key,Value> which is actually a kind of Sort

    - by Brann
    I need to sort some objects according to their contents (in fact according to one of their properties, which is NOT the key and may be duplicated between different objects) .net provides two classes (SortedDictionnary and SortedList), and both are some kind of Dictionaries. The only difference (AFAIK) is that SortedDictionnary uses a binary tree to maintain its state whereas SortedList does not and is accessible via an index. I could achieve what I want using a List, and then using its Sort() method with a custom implementation of IComparer, but it wouldn't be time-efficient as I would sort the whole List each time I insert a new object, whereas a good SortedList would just insert the item at the right position. What I need is a SortedList class with a RefreshPosition(int index) to move only the changed (or inserted) object rather than resorting the whole list each time an object inside changes. Am I missing something obvious ?

    Read the article

  • Best data-structure to use for two ended sorted list

    - by fmark
    I need a collection data-structure that can do the following: Be sorted Allow me to quickly pop values off the front and back of the list Remain sorted after I insert a new value Allow a user-specified comparison function, as I will be storing tuples and want to sort on a particular value Thread-safety is not required Optionally allow efficient haskey() lookups (I'm happy to maintain a separate hash-table for this though) My thoughts at this stage are that I need a priority queue and a hash table, although I don't know if I can quickly pop values off both ends of a priority queue. I'm interested in performance for a moderate number of items (I would estimate less than 200,000). Another possibility is simply maintaining an OrderedDictionary and doing an insertion sort it every-time I add more data to it. Furthermore, are there any particular implementations in Python. I would really like to avoid writing this code myself.

    Read the article

  • Adding two Set[Any]

    - by Alex Boisvert
    Adding two Set[Int] works: Welcome to Scala version 2.8.1.final (Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM, Java 1.6.0_23). Type in expressions to have them evaluated. Type :help for more information. scala> Set(1,2,3) ++ Set(4,5,6) res0: scala.collection.immutable.Set[Int] = Set(4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3) But adding two Set[Any] doesn't: scala> Set[Any](1,2,3) ++ Set[Any](4,5,6) <console>:6: error: ambiguous reference to overloaded definition, both method ++ in trait Addable of type (xs: scala.collection.TraversableOnce[Any])scala.collection.immutable.Set[Any] and method ++ in trait TraversableLike of type [B >: Any,That](that: scala.collection.TraversableOnce[B])(implicit bf: scala.collection.generic.CanBuildFrom[scala.collection.immutable.Set[Any],B,That])That match argument types (scala.collection.immutable.Set[Any]) Set[Any](1,2,3) ++ Set[Any](4,5,6) ^ Any suggestion to work around this error?

    Read the article

  • How to bundle extension methods requiring configuration in a library

    - by Greg
    Hi, I would like to develop a library that I can re-use to add various methods involved in navigating/searching through a graph (nodes/relationships, or if you like vertexs/edges). The generic requirements would be: There are existing classes in the main project that already implement the equivalent of the graph class (which contains the lists of nodes / relationships), node class and relationship class (which links nodes together) - the main project likely already has persistence mechanisms for the info (e.g. these classes might be built using Entity Framework for persistance) Methods would need to be added to each of these 3 classes: (a) graph class - methods like "search all nodes", (b) node class - methods such as "find all children to depth i", c) relationship class - methods like "return relationship type", "get parent node", "get child node". I assume there would be a need to inform the library with the extending methods the class names for the graph/node/relationships table (as different project might use different names). To some extent it would need to be like how a generics collection works (where you pass the classes to the collection so it knows what they are). Need to be a way to inform the library of which node property to use for equality checks perhaps (e.g. if it were a graph of webpages the equality field to use might be the URI path) I'm assuming that using abstract base classes wouldn't really work as this would tie usage down to have to use the same persistence approach, and same class names etc. Whereas really I want to be able to, for a project that has "graph-like" characteristics, the ability to add graph searching/walking methods to it.

    Read the article

  • How to change order in ordered+persisted collection?

    - by Jaroslav Záruba
    I just need to change order of items in a (previously persisted) ordered collection... I tried simply passing the re-arranged collection to a setter: after committing a transaction the collection is gone. Then I tried to clear() the existing collection and addAll() afterwards: clear() makes persistent manager to mark all the elements as deleted. (But obviously I would like to be able to work with the collection items in the very transaction.) (The collection is not in a default fetch group, so I tried the above also with the named fetch group added into the fetch plan. No luck.) This must be the most stupid question, but I ran out of ideas and I'm stuck here two days already. I swear I googled. :(

    Read the article

  • Java: How to workaround the lack of Equatable interface?

    - by java.is.for.desktop
    Hello, everyone! As far as I know, things such as SortedMap or SortedSet, use compareTo (rather than equals) on Comparable<?> types for checking equality (contains, containsKey). But what if certain types are equatable by concept, but not comparable? I have to declare a Comparator<?> and override the method int compareTo(T o1, To2). OK, I can return 0 for instances which are considered equal. But, for unqeual instances, what do I return when an order is not evident? Is the approach of using SortedMap or SortedSet on equatable but (by concept) not comparable types good anyway? Thank you! EDIT: I don't want to store things sorted, but would I use "usual" Map and Set, I couldn't "override" the equality-behavior. EDIT 2: Why I can't just override equals(...): I need to alter the equality-behavior of a foreign class. Can't edit it. EDIT 3: Just think of .NET: They have IEquatable interface which cat alter the equality-behavior without touching the comparable behavior.

    Read the article

  • fail-fast iterator

    - by joy
    I get this definition : As name suggest fail-fast Iterators fail as soon as they realized that structure of Collection has been changed since iteration has begun. what it mean by since iteration has begun? is that mean after Iterator it=set.iterator() this line of code? public static void customize(BufferedReader br) throws IOException{ Set<String> set=new HashSet<String>(); // Actual type parameter added **Iterator it=set.iterator();**

    Read the article

  • Creating a blocking Queue<T> in .NET?

    - by spoon16
    I have a scenario where I have multiple threads adding to a queue and multiple threads reading from the same queue. If the queue reaches a specific size all threads that are filling the queue will be blocked on add until an item is removed from the queue. The solution below is what I am using right now and my question is: How can this be improved? Is there an object that already enables this behavior in the BCL that I should be using? internal class BlockingCollection<T> : CollectionBase, IEnumerable { //todo: might be worth changing this into a proper QUEUE private AutoResetEvent _FullEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); internal T this[int i] { get { return (T) List[i]; } } private int _MaxSize; internal int MaxSize { get { return _MaxSize; } set { _MaxSize = value; checkSize(); } } internal BlockingCollection(int maxSize) { MaxSize = maxSize; } internal void Add(T item) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection add waiting: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.WaitOne(); List.Add(item); Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item added: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); checkSize(); } internal void Remove(T item) { lock (List) { List.Remove(item); } Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item removed: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); } protected override void OnRemoveComplete(int index, object value) { checkSize(); base.OnRemoveComplete(index, value); } internal new IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { return List.GetEnumerator(); } private void checkSize() { if (Count < MaxSize) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent set: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Set(); } else { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent reset: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Reset(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Properly removing an Integer from a List<Integer>

    - by Yuval A
    Here's a nice pitfall I just encountered. Consider a list of integers: List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>(); list.add(5); list.add(6); list.add(7); list.add(1); Any educated guess on what happens when you execute list.remove(1)? What about list.remove(new Integer(1))? This can cause some nasty bugs. What is the proper way to differentiate between remove(int index), which removes an element from given index and remove(Object o), which removes an element by reference, when dealing with lists of integers? The main point to consider here is the one @Nikita mentioned - exact parameter matching takes precedence over auto-boxing.

    Read the article

  • Iteration order of HashSet

    - by eljenso
    If every object added to a java.util.HashSet implements Object.equals() and Object.hashCode() in a deterministic fashion, is the iteration order over the HashSet guaranteed to be identical for every identical set of elements added, irrespective of the order in which they were added?

    Read the article

  • Can I use foreach to return only a certain type from a collection?

    - by RoboShop
    If I enter the code below, I get an error. Basically, the foreach will break when it comes across a Control that isn't a label. foreach (Label currControl in this.Controls()) { ... } I have to do something like this. foreach (Control currControl in this.Controls()) { if(typeof(Label).Equals(currControl.GetType())){ ... } } can anyone think of a better way of doing it without me needing to check the type? Can I somehow get foreach to skip the objects that aren't Labels?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >