Search Results

Search found 9879 results on 396 pages for 'thread dump'.

Page 32/396 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

  • BackgroundWorker vs background Thread

    - by freddy smith
    I have a stylistic question about the choice of background thread implementation I should use on a windows form app. Currently I have a BackgroundWorker on a form that has an infinite (while(true)) loop. In this loop I use WaitHandle.WaitAny to keep the thread snoozing until something of interest happens. One of the event handles I wait on is a "stopthread" event so that I can break out of the loop. This event is signaled when from my overridden Form.Dispose(). I read somewhere that BackgroundWorker is really intended for operations that you dont want to tie up the UI with and have an finite end - like downloading a file, or processing a sequence of items. In this case the "end" is unknown and only when the window is closed. Therefore would it be more appropriate for me to use a background Thread instead of BackgroundWorker for this purpose?

    Read the article

  • How to re-use a thread in Java ?

    - by David
    I am a building a console Sudoku Solver where the main objective is raw speed. I now have a ManagerThread that starts WorkerThreads to compute the neibhbors of each cell. So one WorkerThread is started for each cell right now. How can I re-use an existing thread that has completed its work? The Thread Pool Pattern seems to be the solution, but I don't understand what to do to prevent the thread from dying once its job has been completed. ps : I do not expect to gain much performance for this particular task, just want to experiment how multi-threading works before applying it to the more complex parts of the code. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Android - Question on postDelayed and Threads

    - by Chris
    I have a question about postDelayed. The android docs say that it adds the runnable to the queue and it runs in the UI thread. What does this mean? So, for example, the same thread I use to create my layout is used to run the Runnable? What if I want it as an independent thread that executes while I am creating my layout and defining my activity? Thanks Chris

    Read the article

  • How to pause a thread in java?

    - by mithun1538
    Consider the following code: while(true) { someFunction(); Thread.sleep(1000); } What I want is that, someFunction() be called once every 10 seconds. But this is not the case. It is being called every second. I tried Thread.wait(1000), but even that doesnt help. I removed of the while part, just kept the body, and at the end wrote : Thread.start(); But it throwed an exception. Is there any other solution to this?

    Read the article

  • Am I correct in my assumption about synchronized block?

    - by kunjaan
    I have a method shout() with a synchronized block. private void shout(){ System.out.println("SHOUT " + Thread.currentThread().getName()); synchronized(this){ System.out.println("Synchronized Shout" + Thread.currentThread().getName()); try { Thread.sleep(50); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println("Synchronized Shout" + Thread.currentThread().getName()); } } If I have two Threads that run this method, am I correct in assuming that the two "Synchronized Shout" will always appear one after the other? There can be no other statements in between the "Synchronized Shout"?

    Read the article

  • Accidental Complexity in OpenSSL HMAC functions

    - by Hassan Syed
    SSL Documentation Analaysis This question is pertaining the usage of the HMAC routines in OpenSSL. Since Openssl documentation is a tad on the weak side in certain areas, profiling has revealed that using the: unsigned char *HMAC(const EVP_MD *evp_md, const void *key, int key_len, const unsigned char *d, int n, unsigned char *md, unsigned int *md_len); From here, shows 40% of my library runtime is devoted to creating and taking down **HMAC_CTX's behind the scenes. There are also two additional function to create and destroy a HMAC_CTX explicetly: HMAC_CTX_init() initialises a HMAC_CTX before first use. It must be called. HMAC_CTX_cleanup() erases the key and other data from the HMAC_CTX and releases any associated resources. It must be called when an HMAC_CTX is no longer required. These two function calls are prefixed with: The following functions may be used if the message is not completely stored in memory My data fits entirely in memory, so I choose the HMAC function -- the one whose signature is shown above. The context, as described by the man page, is made use of by using the following two functions: HMAC_Update() can be called repeatedly with chunks of the message to be authenticated (len bytes at data). HMAC_Final() places the message authentication code in md, which must have space for the hash function output. The Scope of the Application My application generates a authentic (HMAC, which is also used a nonce), CBC-BF encrypted protocol buffer string. The code will be interfaced with various web-servers and frameworks Windows / Linux as OS, nginx, Apache and IIS as webservers and Python / .NET and C++ web-server filters. The description above should clarify that the library needs to be thread safe, and potentially have resumeable processing state -- i.e., lightweight threads sharing a OS thread (which might leave thread local memory out of the picture). The Question How do I get rid of the 40% overhead on each invocation in a (1) thread-safe / (2) resume-able state way ? (2) is optional since I have all of the source-data present in one go, and can make sure a digest is created in place without relinquishing control of the thread mid-digest-creation. So, (1) can probably be done using thread local memory -- but how do I resuse the CTX's ? does the HMAC_final() call make the CTX reusable ?. (2) optional: in this case I would have to create a pool of CTX's. (3) how does the HMAC function do this ? does it create a CTX in the scope of the function call and destroy it ? Psuedocode and commentary will be useful.

    Read the article

  • App only spawns one thread

    - by tipu
    I have what I thought was a thread-friendly app, and after doing some output I've concluded that of the 15 threads I am attempting to run, only one does. I have if __name__ == "__main__": fhf = FileHandlerFactory() tweet_manager = TweetManager("C:/Documents and Settings/Administrator/My Documents/My Dropbox/workspace/trie/Tweet Search Engine/data/partitioned_raw_tweets/raw_tweets.txt.001") start = time.time() for i in range(15): Indexer(tweet_manager, fhf).start() Then in my thread-entry point, I do def run(self): print(threading.current_thread()) self.index() That results in this: <Indexer(Thread-3, started 1168)> So of 15 threads that I thought were running, I'm only running one. Any idea as to why? Edit: code

    Read the article

  • iPhone equivalent of Application.DoEvents();

    - by BahaiResearch.com
    iPHone: We use MonoTouch, but Obj-C answers are ok. My singleton domain object takes a while to get all the data so it runs internally parts of the fetch in a thread. I need to inform the UI that the domain is done. Currently I do this. Is there a better way? In WinForms I would call Application.DoEvents() instead of Thread Sleep. PlanDomain domain = PlanDomain.Instance (); while (domain.IsLoadingData) { Thread.Sleep (100); //this is the main UI thread } TableView.Hidden = false; TableView.Source = new TableSource (this); TableView.ReloadData ();

    Read the article

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

    - by user359446
    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.

    Read the article

  • Ramifications of CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls=false

    - by Ron Skufca
    I recently updated an application from VS2003 to VS2008 and I knew I would be dealing with a host of "Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'myControl' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on" I am handling this in what I beleive is the correct way (see code sample below). I am running into numerous controls that are going to need a similar fix. Not wanting to have similar code for every label, textbox etc.. that are being accessed by a non UI thread. What are the ramifications of just setting the CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false for the entire app? I found a CodeProject article with various workarounds and a warning at the bottom to NOT set the property. I am looking for other opinions/experiences on this issue. private void ShowStatus(string szStatus) { try { if (this.statusBar1.InvokeRequired) { BeginInvoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate() { ShowStatus(szStatus); })); } else { statusBar1.Panels[0].Text = szStatus; } } catch (Exception ex) { LogStatus.WriteErrorLog(ex, "Error", "frmMNI.ShowStatus()"); } }

    Read the article

  • Understanding Thread/BeginInvoke? [beginner]

    - by Moberg
    Consider the code: class Work { public void DoStuff(string s) { Console.WriteLine(s); // .. whatever } } class Master { private readonly Work work = new Work(); public void Execute() { string hello = "hello"; // (1) is this an ugly hack ? var thread1 = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(o => this.work.DoStuff((string)o))); thread1.Start(hello); thread1.Join(); // (2) is this similar to the one above? new Action<string>(s => this.work.DoStuff(s)).BeginInvoke(hello, null, null); } } Is (1) an acceptable way of easy starting some work in a seperate thread? If not a better alternative would be much appreciated. Is (2) doing the same? I guess what I ask is if a new thread is started, or.. Hope you can help a beginner to a better understanding :) /Moberg

    Read the article

  • Ruby Thread with "watchdog"

    - by Sergio Campamá
    I'm implementing a ruby server for handling sockets being created from GPRS modules. The thing is that when the module powers down, there's no indication that the socket closed. I'm doing threads to handle multiple sockets with the same server. What I'm asking is this: Is there a way to use a timer inside a thread, reset it after every socket input, and that if it hits the timeout, closes the thread? Where can I find more information about this? EDIT: Code example that doesn't detect the socket closing require 'socket' server = TCPServer.open(41000) loop do Thread.start(server.accept) do |client| puts "Client connected" begin loop do line = client.readline open('log.txt', 'a') { |f| f.puts line.strip } end rescue puts "Client disconnected" end end end

    Read the article

  • Events raised by BackgroundWorker not executed on expected thread

    - by Topdown
    A winforms dialog is using BackgroundWorker to perform some asynchronous operations with significant success. On occasion, the async process being run by the background worker will need to raise events to the winforms app for user response (a message that asks the user if they wish to cancel), the response of which captured in an CancelEventArgs type of the event. Being an implementation of threading, I would have expected the RaiseEvent of the worker to fire, and then the worker would continue, hence requiring me to pause the worker until the response is received. Instead however, the worker is held to wait for the code executed by the raise event to complete. It seems like method I am calling via the event call is actually on the worker thread used by the background worker, and I am surprised, since I expected to see it on the Main Thread which is where the mainform is running. Also surprisingly, there are no cross thread exceptions thrown. Can somebody please explain why this is not as I expect?

    Read the article

  • Thread testing for time

    - by DanielFH
    Hi there :) I'm making a thread for my application that's going to do an exit operation at a given time (only hours and minutes, day/month doesn't matter). Is this the right way to do it, and also the right way to test for time? I'm testing for a 24 hour clock by the way, not AM / PM. I'm then in another class going to call this something like new Thread(new ExitThread()).start(); public class ExitThread implements Runnable { @Override public void run() { Date date = new Date(System.currentTimeMillis()); String time = new SimpleDateFormat("HHmmss").format(date); int currentTime = Integer.parseInt(time); int exitTime = 233000; while(true) { try { Thread.sleep(10000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } if(currentTime >= exitTime ) { // do exit operation here } } } Thanks. //D

    Read the article

  • 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

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >