Search Results

Search found 8144 results on 326 pages for 'thread'.

Page 26/326 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • ArrayBlockingQueue - How to "interrupt" a thread that is wating on .take() method

    - by bernhard
    I use an ArrayBlockingQueue in my code. Clients will wait untill an element becomes available: myBlockingQueue.take(); How can I "shutdown" my service in case no elements are present in the queue and the take() ist wating indefenitely for an element to become available? This method throws an InterruptedException. My question is, how can I "evoke" an Interrupted Exception so that take() will quit? (I also tought about notify(), but it seems I doesnt help here..) I know I could insert an special "EOF/QUIT" marker Element but is this really the only solution? UPDATE (regarding the comment, that points to another question with two solutions: one mentioned above using a "Poisoning Pill Object" and the second one is Thread.interrupt(): The myBlockingQueue.take() is used NOT in a Thread (extending Thread) but rather implements Runnable. It seems a Runnable does not provide the .interrupt() method? How could I interrupt the Runnable? Million Thanks Bernhard

    Read the article

  • How to implement cancellable worker thread

    - by Arnold Zokas
    Hi, I'm trying to implement a cancellable worker thread using the new threading constructs in System.Threading.Tasks namespace. So far I have have come up with this implementation: public sealed class Scheduler { private CancellationTokenSource _cancellationTokenSource; public System.Threading.Tasks.Task Worker { get; private set; } public void Start() { _cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource(); Worker = System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Factory.StartNew( () => RunTasks(_cancellationTokenSource.Token), _cancellationTokenSource.Token ); } private static void RunTasks(CancellationToken cancellationToken) { while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) { Thread.Sleep(1000); // simulate work } } public void Stop() { try { _cancellationTokenSource.Cancel(); Worker.Wait(_cancellationTokenSource.Token); } catch (OperationCanceledException) { // OperationCanceledException is expected when a Task is cancelled. } } } When Stop() returns I expect Worker.Status to be TaskStatus.Canceled. My unit tests have shown that under certain conditions Worker.Status remains set to TaskStatus.Running. Is this a correct way to implement a cancellable worker thread?

    Read the article

  • C# Thread issues

    - by Mike
    What I have going on is a listview being dynamically created from a previous button click. Then ti starts a background worker in which should clear out the listview and populate the iistview with new information every 30 seconds. I continously get: Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'listView2' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on. private void watcherprocess1Updatelist() { listView2.Items.Clear(); string betaFilePath1 = @"C:\Alpha\watch1\watch1config.txt"; using (FileStream fs = new FileStream(betaFilePath1, FileMode.Open)) using (StreamReader rdr = new StreamReader((fs))) { while (!rdr.EndOfStream) { string[] betaFileLine = rdr.ReadLine().Split(','); using (WebClient webClient = new WebClient()) { string urlstatelevel = betaFileLine[0]; string html = webClient.DownloadString(urlstatelevel); File.AppendAllText(@"C:\Alpha\watch1\specificconfig.txt", html); } } }

    Read the article

  • Windows Service And Thread Programming .NET

    - by Raghu
    I have developed windows service to process files whose records will be stored in database. When windows service finds a file it creates a thread and assigns each file to one thread. I have not used Thread Pool. I wanted to know when windows service is stopped, then how to identify how many threads are running and whether they are complete. If all the threads are executed then windows service can be stopped successfully. Otherwis windows service should wait until all threads are executed or aborted. How to implement this.

    Read the article

  • Put Java Threading Class into a separate class

    - by erlord
    Consider following SWT code example: http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.swt.snippets/src/org/eclipse/swt/snippets/Snippet151.java?view=co How can I separate the inline defined class? Thread thread = new Thread() { public void run() { ... } }; I want to define a separate class which updates the table just like it does here. How do I pass the list back to the table? Example code?

    Read the article

  • What exactly is a reentrant function?

    - by eSKay
    Most of the times, the definition of reentrance is quoted from Wikipedia: A computer program or routine is described as reentrant if it can be safely called again before its previous invocation has been completed (i.e it can be safely executed concurrently). To be reentrant, a computer program or routine: Must hold no static (or global) non-constant data. Must not return the address to static (or global) non-constant data. Must work only on the data provided to it by the caller. Must not rely on locks to singleton resources. Must not modify its own code (unless executing in its own unique thread storage) Must not call non-reentrant computer programs or routines. How is safely defined? If a program can be safely executed concurrently, does it always mean that it is reentrant? What exactly is the common thread between the six points mentioned that I should keep in mind while checking my code for reentrant capabilities? Also, Are all recursive functions reentrant? Are all thread-safe functions reentrant? Are all recursive and thread-safe functions reentrant? While writing this question, one thing comes to mind: Are the terms like reentrance and thread safety absolute at all i.e. do they have fixed concrete definations? For, if they are not, this question is not very meaningful. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Final enum in Thread's run() method

    - by portoalet
    Hi, Why is the Elvis elvis definition has to be final to be used inside the Thread run() method? Elvis elvis = Elvis.INSTANCE; // ----> should be final Elvis elvis = Elvis.INSTANCE elvis.sing(4); Thread t1 = new Thread( new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { elvis.sing(6); // --------> elvis has to be final to compile } } ); public enum Elvis { INSTANCE(2); Elvis() { this.x = new AtomicInteger(0); } Elvis(int x){ this.x = new AtomicInteger(x); } private AtomicInteger x = new AtomicInteger(0); public int getX() { return x.get(); } public void setX(int x) {this.x = new AtomicInteger(x);} public void sing(int x) { this.x = new AtomicInteger(x); System.out.println("Elvis singing.." + x); } }

    Read the article

  • Efficiently display file status when using background thread

    - by schmoopy
    How can i efficiently display the status of a file when using a background thread? For instance, lets say i have a 100MB file: when i do the code below via a thread (just as an example) it runs in about 1 min: foreach(byte b in file.bytes) { WriteByte(b, xxx); } But... if i want to update the user i have to use a delegate to update the UI from the main thread, the code below takes - FOREVER - literally i don't know how long im still waiting, ive created this post and its not even 30% done. int total = file.length; int current = 0; foreach(byte b in file.bytes) { current++; UpdateCurrentFileStatus(current, total); WriteByte(b, xxx); } public delegate void UpdateCurrentFileStatus(int cur, int total); public void UpdateCurrentFileStatus(int cur, int total) { // Check if invoke required, if so create instance of delegate // the update the UI if(this.InvokeRequired) { } else { UpdateUI(...) } }

    Read the article

  • How to interrupt a waiting C++0x thread?

    - by doublep
    I'm considering to use C++0x threads in my application instead of Boost threads. However, I'm not sure how to reimplement what I have with standard C++0x threads since they don't seem to have an interrupt() method. My current setup is: a master thread that manages work; several worker threads that carry out master's commands. Workers call wait() on at least two different condition variables. Master has a "timed out" state: in this case it tells all workers to stop and give whatever result they got by then. With Boost threads master just uses interrupt_all() on a thread group, which causes workers to stop waiting. In case they are not waiting at the moment, master also sets a bool flag which workers check periodically. However, in C++0x std::thread I don't see any replacement for interrupt(). Do I miss something? If not, how can I implement the above scheme so that workers cannot just sleep forever?

    Read the article

  • Async stream writing in a thread

    - by blez
    I have a thread in which I write to 2 streams. The problem is that the thread is blocked until the first one finishes writing (until all data is transferred on the other side of the pipe), and I don't want that. Is there a way to make it asynchronous? chunkOutput is a Dictionary filled with data from multiple threads, so the faster checking for existing keys is, the faster the pipe will write. void ConsumerMethod(object totalChunks) { while(true) { if (chunkOutput.ContainsKey(curChunk)) { if (outputStream != null && chunkOutput[curChunk].Length > 0) { outputStream.Write(chunkOutput[curChunk]); // <-- here it stops } ChunkDownloader.AppendData("outfile.dat", chunkOutput[curChunk], chunkOutput[curChunk].Length); curChunk++; if (curChunk >= (int) totalChunks) return; } Thread.Sleep(10); } }

    Read the article

  • How to buffer stdout in memory and write it from a dedicated thread

    - by NickB
    I have a C application with many worker threads. It is essential that these do not block so where the worker threads need to write to a file on disk, I have them write to a circular buffer in memory, and then have a dedicated thread for writing that buffer to disk. The worker threads do not block any more. The dedicated thread can safely block while writing to disk without affecting the worker threads (it does not hold a lock while writing to disk). My memory buffer is tuned to be sufficiently large that the writer thread can keep up. This all works great. My question is, how do I implement something similar for stdout? I could macro printf() to write into a memory buffer, but I don't have control over all the code that might write to stdout (some of it is in third-party libraries). Thoughts? NickB

    Read the article

  • iphone threading speed up startup of app

    - by BahaiResearch.com
    I have an app that must get data from the Sqlite database in order to display the first element to the User. I have created a domain object which wraps the DB access and is a thread safe singleton. Is this following strategy optimal to ensure the fastest load given the iPhone's file access and memory management capabilities in threaded apps: 1) In the AppDelegate's FinishedLaunching event the very first thing I do is create the domain singleton within a new thread. This will cause the domain object to go to Sqlite and get the data it needs without locking the UI thread. 2) I then call the standard Window methods to add the View and MakeKeyAndVisible etc. Is there an earlier stage in the AppDelegate where I should fire off the thread that creates the Domain Object and accesses Sqlite?

    Read the article

  • Will this make the object thread-safe?

    - by sharptooth
    I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

    Read the article

  • event vs thread programming on server side.

    - by AlxPeter
    We are planning to start a fairly complex web-portal which is expected to attract good local traffic and I've been told by my boss to consider/analyse node.js for the serve side. I think scalability and multi-core support can be handled with an Nginx or Cherokee up in the front. 1) Is this node.js ready for some serious/big business? 2) Does this 'event/asynchronous' paradigm on server side has the potential to support the heavy traffic and data operation ? considering the fact that 'everything' is being processed in a single thread and all the live connections would be lost if it got crashed (though its easy to restart). 3) What are the advantages of event based programming compared to thread based style ? or vice-versa. (I know of higher cost associated with thread switching but hardware can be squeezed with event model.) Following are interesting but contradicting (to some extent) papers:- 1) http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos03/tech/full_papers/vonbehren/vonbehren_html 2) http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~rtm/papers/dabek:event.pdf

    Read the article

  • How to kill a thread immediately from another thread in java?

    - by Sara
    Hi, is there anyway to kill a thread or interrupt it immediately. Like in one of my thread, i call a method which takes time to execute (2-4 seconds). This method is in a while(boolean flag) block, so i can interrupt it from the main thread. But the problem is, if i interrupt it; it will wait till the executing loop is finished and then on next conditional check, it will stop execution. I want it to stop right then. Is there anyway to do this?

    Read the article

  • prevent linux thread from being interrupted by scheduler

    - by johnnycrash
    How do you tell the thread scheduler in linux to not interrupt your thread for any reason? I am programming in user mode. Does simply locking a mutex acomplish this? I want to prevent other threads in my process from being scheduled when a certain function is executing. They would block and I would be wasting cpu cycles with context switches. I want any thread executing the function to be able to finish executing without interruption even if the threads' timeslice is exceeded.

    Read the article

  • c++ simple start a function with its own thread

    - by user1397417
    i had once had a very simple one or two line code that would start a function with its own thread and continue running until application closed, c++ console app. lost the project it was in, and remember it was hard to find. cant find it online now. most example account for complicated multithreading situations. but i just need to open this one function in its own thread. hopefully someone knows what im talking about, or a similar solution. eg. start void abc in its own thread, no parameters

    Read the article

  • Referenced assembly won't load in new thread on IIS 7

    - by DanielC
    I have a process in which a user uploads a file to a web site where the file is then processed and uploaded into the database. The process of validating the file could take several minutes so as soon as the file is uploaded I create a new thread and I do my processing on this second thread. This works great on my local machine but doesn't work at all on my IIS 7 test server. After some investigating I found the problem is that the process is trying to load a reference to Castle and it can't find the DLL. I have a copy of Castle DLLs in my bin and it works elsewhere in my app. I ran Fuslog and discovered that it is trying to load castle from the wrong location. It is trying to load from c:/windows/system32/inetsrv/. It appears that under IIS 7 the second thread is executing in a different context or something. So the question is what can I do to get it to find Castle in the application BIN folder?

    Read the article

  • Reason for .Net UI Element Thread-restriction

    - by Charles Bretana
    We know that it is not possible to execute code that manipulates the properties of any UI element from any thread other than the thread the element was instantiated on... My question is why? I remember that when we used COM user interface elements, (in COM/VB6 days), that all UI elements were created using COM classes and co-classes that stored their resources using a memory model referred to as Thread-Local-Storage (TLS) , but as I recall, this was required because of something relaetd to the way COM components were constructed, and should not be relevant to .Net UI elements. Wha's the underlying reason why this restriction still exists? Is it because the underlying Operating System still uses COM-based Win32 API classes for all UI elements, even the ones manipulated in a managed .Net application ??

    Read the article

  • C# Dispatcher {"The calling thread cannot access this object because a different thread owns it."}

    - by user359446
    Hi, first I need to say that I´m noob with WPF and C#. Application: Create Mandelbrot Image (GUI) My disptacher works perfektly this this case: private void progressBarRefresh(){ while ((con.Progress) < 99) { progressBar1.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Send, new Action(delegate { progressBar1.Value = con.Progress; } )); } } I get the Message (Title) when tring to do this with the below code: bmp = BitmapSource.Create(width, height, 96, 96, pf, null, rawImage, stride); this.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Send, new Action(delegate { img.Source = bmp; ViewBox.Child = img; //vllt am schluss } )); I will try to explain how my program works. I created a new Thread (because GUI dont response) for the calculation of the pixels and the colors. In this Thread(Mehtod) I´m using the Dispatcher to Refresh my Image in the ViewBox after the calculations are ready. When I´m dont put the calculation in a seperate Thread then I can refresh or build my Image. PS: Sry for my bad english

    Read the article

  • Datagridview retains waitcursor when updated from thread

    - by Apeksha
    I have a DataGridView control in my Windows Forms Application. I am adding rows to the grid using a background thread. I change the form's cursor to Waitcursor when the process starts and back to Default when it ends. This works well for the form, but not for the grid. When the form's cursor is changed back to default, the grid's cursor does not change, although the cursor over the rest of the form does. Does this have anything to do with the fact that I am updating the grid from a background thread? (The cursor is being changed from the UI thread).

    Read the article

  • OpenGL multiple threads, variable handling [closed]

    - by toeplitz
    I have written an OpenGL program which runs in the following way: Main: - Initialize SDL - Create thread which has the OpenGL context: - Renderloop - Set camera (view) matrix with glUniform. - glDrawElements() .... etc. - Swapbuffers(); - Main SDL loop handling input events and such. - Update camera matrix of type glm::mat4. This is how I pass my camera object to the class that handles opengl. Camera *cam = new Camera(); gl.setCam(cam); where void setCam(Camera *camera) { this->camera = camera; } For rendering in the opengl context thread, this happens: glm::mat4 modelView = camera->view * model; glUniformMatrix4fv(shader->bindUniform("modelView"), 1, GL_FALSE, glm::value_ptr(modelView)); In the main program where my SDL and other things are handles I then recompute the view matrix. This his working fine without me using any mutex locks. Is this correct? On the other hand, I add objects to my scene by an "upload queue" and in this case I have to mutex lock my upload queue vector (vector class type) when adding items to it or else the program crashes. In summary: I recompute my matrix in a different thread and then use it in the opengl thread without any mutex lock. Why is this working? Edit: I think my question is similar to what was asked here: Should I lock a variable in one thread if I only need it's value in other threads, and why does it work if I don't?, only in my case it is even more simple with only one matrix being changed.

    Read the article

  • Trouble in ActiveX multi-thread invoke javascript callback routine

    - by code0tt
    everyone. I'm get some trouble in ActiveX programming with ATL. I try to make a activex which can async-download files from http server to local folder and after download it will invoke javascript callback function. My solution: run a thread M to monitor download thread D, when D is finish the job, M is going to terminal themself and invoke IDispatch inferface to call javascript function. **************** THERE IS MY CODE: **************** /* javascript code */ funciton download() { var xfm = new ActiveXObject("XFileMngr.FileManager.1"); xfm.download( 'http://somedomain/somefile','localdev:\\folder\localfile',function(msg){alert(msg);}); } /* C++ code */ // main routine STDMETHODIMP CFileManager::download(BSTR url, BSTR local, VARIANT scriptCallback) { CString csURL(url); CString csLocal(local); CAsyncDownload download; download.Download(this, csURL, csLocal, scriptCallback); return S_OK; } // parts of CAsyncDownload.h typedef struct tagThreadData { CAsyncDownload* pThis; } THREAD_DATA, *LPTHREAD_DATA; class CAsyncDownload : public IBindStatusCallback { private: LPUNKNOWN pcaller; CString csRemoteFile; CString csLocalFile; CComPtr<IDispatch> spCallback; public: void onDone(HRESULT hr); HRESULT Download(LPUNKNOWN caller, CString& csRemote, CString& csLocal, VARIANT callback); static DWORD __stdcall ThreadProc(void* param); }; // parts of CAsyncDownload.cpp void CAsyncDownload::onDone(HRESULT hr) { if(spCallback) { TRACE(TEXT("invoke callback function\n")); CComVariant vParams[1]; vParams[0] = "callback is working!"; DISPPARAMS params = { vParams, NULL, 1, 0 }; HRESULT hr = spCallback->Invoke(0, IID_NULL, LOCALE_USER_DEFAULT, DISPATCH_METHOD, &params, NULL, NULL, NULL); if(FAILED(hr)) { CString csBuffer; csBuffer.Format(TEXT("invoke failed, result value: %d \n"),hr); TRACE(csBuffer); }else { TRACE(TEXT("invoke was successful\n")); } } } HRESULT CAsyncDownload::Download(LPUNKNOWN caller, CString& csRemote, CString& csLocal, VARIANT callback) { CoInitializeEx(NULL, COINIT_MULTITHREADED); csRemoteFile = csRemote; csLocalFile = csLocal; pcaller = caller; switch(callback.vt){ case VT_DISPATCH: case VT_VARIANT:{ spCallback = callback.pdispVal; } break; default:{ spCallback = NULL; } } LPTHREAD_DATA pData = new THREAD_DATA; pData->pThis = this; // create monitor thread M HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(NULL, 0, ThreadProc, (void*)(pData), 0, NULL); if(!hThread) { delete pData; return HRESULT_FROM_WIN32(GetLastError()); } WaitForSingleObject(hThread, INFINITE); CloseHandle(hThread); CoUninitialize(); return S_OK; } DWORD __stdcall CAsyncDownload::ThreadProc(void* param) { LPTHREAD_DATA pData = (LPTHREAD_DATA)param; // here, we will create http download thread D // when download job is finish, call onDone method; pData->pThis->onDone(S_OK); delete pData; return 0; } **************** CODE FINISH **************** OK, above is parts of my source code, if I call onDone method in sub-thread, I will get OLE ERROR(-2147418113 (8000FFFF) Catastrophic failure.). Did I miss something? please help me to figure it out.

    Read the article

  • WPF Databinding thread safety?

    - by Petoj
    Well lets say i have an object that i databind to, it implements INotifyPropertyChanged to tell the GUI when a value has changed... if i trigger this from a different thread than the GUI thread how would wpf behave? and will it make sure that it gets the value of the property from memory and not the cpu cache? more or less im asking if wpf does lock() on the object containing the property...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >