Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 35/66 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

  • Multi threading in WCF RIA Services

    - by synergetic
    I use WCF RIA Services to update customer database. In domain service: public void UpdateCustomer(Customer customer) { this.ObjectContext.Customers.AttachAsModified(customer); syncCustomer(customer); } After update, a database trigger launches and depending on the columns updated it may insert a new record in CustomerChange table. syncCustomer(customer) method is executed to check for a new record in the CustomerChange table and if found it will create a text file which contains customer information and forwards that file to external system for import. Now this synchronization may take a time so I wanted to execute it in different thread. So: private void syncCustomer(Customer customer) { this.ObjectContext.SaveChanges(); new Thread(() => syncCustomerInfo(customer.CustomerID)) { IsBackground = true }.Start(); } private void syncCustomerInfo(int customerID) { //Thread.Sleep(2000); //does real job here ... ... } The problem is in most cases syncCustomerInfo method cannot find any new CustomerChange record even if it was definitely there. If I force thread sleep then it finds a new record. I also looked Entity Framework events but the only event provided by object context is SavingChanges which occur before changes are saved. Please suggest me what else to try.

    Read the article

  • c# multi threaded file processing

    - by user177883
    There is a folder that contains 1000 of small text files. I aim to parse and process all of them while more files are being populated in to the folder. My intention is to multithread this operation as the single threaded prototype took 6 minutes to process 1000 files. I like to have reader and writer thread(s) as following : while the reader thread(s) are reading the files, I d like to have writer thread(s) to process them. Once the reader is started reading a file, I d like to mark it as being processed, such as by renaming it, once it s read, rename it to completed. How to approach such multithreaded application ? Is it better to use a distributed hash table or a queue? Which data structure to use that would avoid locks? Would you have a better approach to this scheme that you like to share?

    Read the article

  • My multithread program works slowly or appear deadlock on dual core machine, please help

    - by Shangping Guo
    I have a program with several threads, one thread will change a global when it exits itself and the other thread will repeatedly poll the global. No any protection on the globals. The program works fine on uni-processor. On dual core machine, it works for a while and then halt either on Sleep(0) or SuspendThread(). Would anyone be able to help me out on this? The code would be like this: Thread 1: do something... while(1) { ..... flag_thread1_running=false; SuspendThread(GetCurrentThread()); continue; } Thread 2 .... while(flag_thread1_running==false) Sleep(0); ....

    Read the article

  • What is the JVM Scheduling algorithm ?

    - by IHawk
    Hello ! I am really curious about how does the JVM work with threads ! In my searches in internet, I found some material about RTSJ, but I don't know if it's the right directions for my answers. I also found this topic in sun's forums, http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?forumID=513&threadID=472453, but that's not satisfatory. Can someone give me some directions, material, articles or suggestion about the JVM scheduling algorithm ? I am also looking for information about the default configurations of Java threads in the scheduler, like 'how long does it take for every thread' in case of time-slicing. And this stuff. I would appreciate any help ! Thank you !

    Read the article

  • Does WCF use the ThreadPool to bring up new instances for a PerCall service?

    - by theburningmonk
    Hi, for a PerCall WCF service whose throttling has been set to be high (say, 200 max concurrent calls) would WCF bring up a new instance and invoke the request on a threadpool thread? If it does, then does this have an impact on the total number of concurrent calls allowed? I ask because I don't seem to ever hit the max number of concurrent calls I've set in the service throttling config but instead a fraction of that number - up to 50 on a 100 MaxConcurrentCalls setting and 160 on a 200 MaxConcurrentCalls setting. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Lock free multiple readers single writer

    - by dummzeuch
    I have got an in memory data structure that is read by multiple threads and written by only one thread. Currently I am using a critical section to make this access threadsafe. Unfortunately this has the effect of blocking readers even though only another reader is accessing it. There are two options to remedy this: use TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer do away with any blocking by using a lock free approach For 2. I have got the following so far (any code that doesn't matter has been left out): type TDataManager = class private FAccessCount: integer; FData: TDataClass; public procedure Read(out _Some: integer; out _Data: double); procedure Write(_Some: integer; _Data: double); end; procedure TDataManager.Read(out _Some: integer; out _Data: double); var Data: TDAtaClass; begin InterlockedIncrement(FAccessCount); try // make sure we get both values from the same TDataClass instance Data := FData; // read the actual data _Some := Data.Some; _Data := Data.Data; finally InterlockedDecrement(FAccessCount); end; end; procedure TDataManager.Write(_Some: integer; _Data: double); var NewData: TDataClass; OldData: TDataClass; ReaderCount: integer; begin NewData := TDataClass.Create(_Some, _Data); InterlockedIncrement(FAccessCount); OldData := TDataClass(InterlockedExchange(integer(FData), integer(NewData)); // now FData points to the new instance but there might still be // readers that got the old one before we exchanged it. ReaderCount := InterlockedDecrement(FAccessCount); if ReaderCount = 0 then // no active readers, so we can safely free the old instance FreeAndNil(OldData) else begin /// here is the problem end; end; Unfortunately there is the small problem of getting rid of the OldData instance after it has been replaced. If no other thread is currently within the Read method (ReaderCount=0), it can safely be disposed and that's it. But what can I do if that's not the case? I could just store it until the next call and dispose it there, but Windows scheduling could in theory let a reader thread sleep while it is within the Read method and still has got a reference to OldData. If you see any other problem with the above code, please tell me about it. This is to be run on computers with multiple cores and the above methods are to be called very frequently. In case this matters: I am using Delphi 2007 with the builtin memory manager. I am aware that the memory manager probably enforces some lock anyway when creating a new class but I want to ignore that for the moment. Edit: It may not have been clear from the above: For the full lifetime of the TDataManager object there is only one thread that writes to the data, not several that might compete for write access. So this is a special case of MREW.

    Read the article

  • Optimizing a shared buffer in a producer/consumer multithreaded environment

    - by Etan
    I have some project where I have a single producer thread which writes events into a buffer, and an additional single consumer thread which takes events from the buffer. My goal is to optimize this thing for a single machine to achieve maximum throughput. Currently, I am using some simple lock-free ring buffer (lock-free is possible since I have only one consumer and one producer thread and therefore the pointers are only updated by a single thread). #define BUF_SIZE 32768 struct buf_t { volatile int writepos; volatile void * buffer[BUF_SIZE]; volatile int readpos;) }; void produce (buf_t *b, void * e) { int next = (b->writepos+1) % BUF_SIZE; while (b->readpos == next); // queue is full. wait b->buffer[b->writepos] = e; b->writepos = next; } void * consume (buf_t *b) { while (b->readpos == b->writepos); // nothing to consume. wait int next = (b->readpos+1) % BUF_SIZE; void * res = b->buffer[b->readpos]; b->readpos = next; return res; } buf_t *alloc () { buf_t *b = (buf_t *)malloc(sizeof(buf_t)); b->writepos = 0; b->readpos = 0; return b; } However, this implementation is not yet fast enough and should be optimized further. I've tried with different BUF_SIZE values and got some speed-up. Additionaly, I've moved writepos before the buffer and readpos after the buffer to ensure that both variables are on different cache lines which resulted also in some speed. What I need is a speedup of about 400 %. Do you have any ideas how I could achieve this using things like padding etc?

    Read the article

  • what happens to running/blocked runnables when executorservice is shutdown()

    - by prmatta
    I posted a question about a thread pattern today, and almost everyone suggested that I look into the ExecutorService. While I was looking into the ExecutorService, I think I am missing something. What happens if the service has a running or blocked threads, and someone calls ExecutorService.shutdown(). What happens to threads that are running or blocked? Does the ExecutorService wait for those threads to complete before it terminates? The reason I ask this is because a long time ago when I used to dabble in Java, they deprecated Thread.stop(), and I remember the right way of stopping a thread was to use sempahores and extend Thread when necessary: public void run () { while (!this.exit) { try { block(); //do something } catch (InterruptedException ie) { } } } public void stop () { this.exit = true; if (this.thread != null) { this.thread.interrupt(); this.thread = null; } } How does ExecutorService handle running threads?

    Read the article

  • What limits scaling in this simple OpenMP program?

    - by Douglas B. Staple
    I'm trying to understand limits to parallelization on a 48-core system (4xAMD Opteron 6348, 2.8 Ghz, 12 cores per CPU). I wrote this tiny OpenMP code to test the speedup in what I thought would be the best possible situation (the task is embarrassingly parallel): // Compile with: gcc scaling.c -std=c99 -fopenmp -O3 #include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> int main(){ const uint64_t umin=1; const uint64_t umax=10000000000LL; double sum=0.; #pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:sum) for(uint64_t u=umin; u<umax; u++) sum+=1./u/u; printf("%e\n", sum); } I was surprised to find that the scaling is highly nonlinear. It takes about 2.9s for the code to run with 48 threads, 3.1s with 36 threads, 3.7s with 24 threads, 4.9s with 12 threads, and 57s for the code to run with 1 thread. Unfortunately I have to say that there is one process running on the computer using 100% of one core, so that might be affecting it. It's not my process, so I can't end it to test the difference, but somehow I doubt that's making the difference between a 19~20x speedup and the ideal 48x speedup. To make sure it wasn't an OpenMP issue, I ran two copies of the program at the same time with 24 threads each (one with umin=1, umax=5000000000, and the other with umin=5000000000, umax=10000000000). In that case both copies of the program finish after 2.9s, so it's exactly the same as running 48 threads with a single instance of the program. What's preventing linear scaling with this simple program?

    Read the article

  • Does my Dictionary must use locking mechanism?

    - by theateist
    Many threads have access to summary. Each thread will have an unique key for accessing the dictionary; Dictionary<string, List<Result>> summary; Do I need locking for following operations? summary[key] = new List<Result>() summary[key].Add(new Result()); It seems that I don't need locking because each thread will access dictionary with different key, but won't the (1) be problematic because of adding concurrently new record to dictionary with other treads?

    Read the article

  • C++ VB6 interfacing problem

    - by Roshan
    Hi, I'm tearing my hair out trying to solve this one, any insights will be much appreciated: I have a C++ exe which acquires data from some hardware in the main thread and processes it in another thread (thread 2). I use a c++ dll to supply some data processing functions which are called from thread 2. I have a requirement to make another set of data processing functions in VB6. I have thus created a VB6 dll, using the add-in vbAdvance to create a standard dll. When I call functions from within this VB6 dll from the main thread, everything works exactly as expected. When I call functions from this VB6 dll in thread 2, I get an access violation. I've traced the error to the CopyMemory command, it would seem that if this is used within the call from the main thread, it's fine but in a call from the process thread, it causes an exception. Why should this be so? As far as I understand, threads share the same address space. Here is the code from my VB dll Public Sub UserFunInterface(ByVal in1ptr As Long, ByVal out1ptr As Long, ByRef nsamples As Long) Dim myarray1() As Single Dim myarray2() As Single Dim i As Integer ReDim myarray1(0 To nsamples - 1) As Single ReDim myarray2(0 To nsamples - 1) As Single With tsa1din(0) ' defined as safearray1d in a global definitions module .cDims = 1 .cbElements = 4 .cElements = nsamples .pvData = in1ptr End With With tsa1dout .cDims = 1 .cbElements = 4 .cElements = nsamples .pvData = out1ptr End With CopyMemory ByVal VarPtrArray(myarray1), VarPtr(tsa1din(0)), 4 CopyMemory ByVal VarPtrArray(myarray2), VarPtr(tsa1dout), 4 For i = 0 To nsamples - 1 myarray2(i) = myarray1(i) * 2 Next i ZeroMemory ByVal VarPtrArray(myarray1), 4 ZeroMemory ByVal VarPtrArray(myarray2), 4 End Sub

    Read the article

  • Java: Stopping a thread that has run for too long?

    - by Thomas King
    Say I've got something like this public void run(){ Thread behaviourThread = new Thread(abstractBehaviours[i]); behaviourThread.start(); } And I want to wait until abstractBehaviours[i] run method has either finished or run for 5000 milliseconds. How do I do that? behaviourThread.join(5000) doesn't seem to do that afaik (something is wrong with my code and I've put it down to that). All the abstract abstractBehaviour class is of course Runnable. I don't want to implement it inside each run method as that seems ugly and there are many different behaviours, I'd much rather have it in the calling/executing thread and do it just once. Solutions? First time doing something as threaded as this. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Singleton & Multi-threading

    - by ronan
    Friends I have the following class that class Singleton { private: static Singleton *p_inst; Singleton(); public: static Singleton * instance() { if (!p_inst) { p_inst = new Singleton(); } return p_inst; } }; Please do elaborate on precautions taken while implementing Singleton in multi-threaded environment .. Many thanks

    Read the article

  • Detecting a stale Mutex

    - by sum1stolemyname
    Is there any technique or tool available to detect this kind of a deadlock during runtime? picture this in a worker thread (one of several, normally 4-6) try WaitForSingleObject(myMutex); DoSTuffThatMightCauseAnException; Except ReleaseMutex(myMutex); end; or more generally is there a design-pattern to avoid these kind of bugs? I coded the above code in the little hous after a longer hacking run

    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

  • Multi-threaded library calls in ASP.NET page request.

    - by ProfK
    I have an ASP.NET app, very basic, but right now too much code to post if we're lucky and I don't have to. We have a class called ReportGenerator. On a button click, method GenerateReports is called. It makes an async call to InternalGenerateReports using ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem and returns, ending the ASP.NET response. It doesn't provide any completion callback or anything. InternalGenerateReports creates and maintains five threads in the threadpool, one report per thread, also using QueueUserWorkItem, by 'creating' five threads, also with and waiting until calls on all of them complete, in a loop. Each thread uses an ASP.NET ReportViewer control to render a report to HTML. That is, for 200 reports, InternalGenerateReports should create 5 threads 40 times. As threads complete, report data is queued, and when all five have completed, report data is flushed to disk. My biggest problems are that after running for just one report, the aspnet process is 'hung', and also that at around 200 reports, the app just hangs. I just simplified this code to run in a single thread, and this works fine. Before we get into details like my code, is there anything obvious in the above scendario that might be wrong?

    Read the article

  • Socket.Recieve Failing When Multithreaded

    - by Qua
    The following piece of code runs fine when parallelized to 4-5 threads, but starts to fail as the number of threads increase somewhere beyond 10 concurrentthreads int totalRecieved = 0; int recieved; StringBuilder contentSB = new StringBuilder(4000); while ((recieved = socket.Receive(buffer, SocketFlags.None)) > 0) { contentSB.Append(Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buffer, 0, recieved)); totalRecieved += recieved; } The Recieve method returns with zero bytes read, and if I continue calling the recieve method then I eventually get a 'An established connection was aborted by the software in your host machine'-exception. So I'm assuming that the host actually sent data and then closed the connection, but for some reason I never recieved it. I'm curious as to why this problem arises when there are a lot of threads. I'm thinking it must have something to do with the fact that each thread doesn't get as much execution time and therefore there are some idle time for the threads which causes this error. Just can't figure out why idle time would cause the socket not to recieve any data.

    Read the article

  • Running code when all threads are finished processing.

    - by rich97
    Quick note: Java and Android noob here, I'm open to you telling me I'm stupid (as long as you tell me why.) I have an android application which requires me start multiple threads originating from various classes and only advance to the next activity once all threads have done their job. I also want to add a "failsafe" timeout in case one the the threads takes too long (HTTP request taking too long or something.) I searched Stack Overflow and found a post saying that I should create a class to keep a running total of open threads and then use a timer to poll for when all the threads are completed. I think I've created a working class to do this for me, it's untested as of yet but has no errors showing in eclipse. Is this a correct implementation? Are there any APIs that I should be made aware of (such as classes in the Java or Android APIs that could be used in place of the abstract classes at the bottom of the class?) package com.dmp.geofix.libs; import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.Iterator; import java.util.Timer; import java.util.TimerTask; public class ThreadMonitor { private Timer timer = null; private TimerTask timerTask = null; private OnSuccess onSuccess = null; private OnError onError = null; private static ArrayList<Thread> threads; private final int POLL_OPEN_THREADS = 100; private final int TIMEOUT = 10000; public ThreadMonitor() { timerTask = new PollThreadsTask(); } public ThreadMonitor(OnSuccess s) { timerTask = new PollThreadsTask(); onSuccess = s; } public ThreadMonitor(OnError e) { timerTask = new PollThreadsTask(); onError = e; } public ThreadMonitor(OnSuccess s, OnError e) { timerTask = new PollThreadsTask(); onSuccess = s; onError = e; } public void start() { Iterator<Thread> i = threads.iterator(); while (i.hasNext()) { i.next().start(); } timer = new Timer(); timer.schedule(timerTask, 0, POLL_OPEN_THREADS); } public void finish() { Iterator<Thread> i = threads.iterator(); while (i.hasNext()) { i.next().interrupt(); } threads.clear(); timer.cancel(); } public void addThread(Thread t) { threads.add(t); } public void removeThread(Thread t) { threads.remove(t); t.interrupt(); } class PollThreadsTask extends TimerTask { private int timeElapsed = 0; @Override public void run() { timeElapsed += POLL_OPEN_THREADS; if (timeElapsed <= TIMEOUT) { if (threads.isEmpty() == false) { if (onSuccess != null) { onSuccess.run(); } } } else { if (onError != null) { onError.run(); } finish(); } } } public abstract class OnSuccess { public abstract void run(); } public abstract class OnError { public abstract void run(); } }

    Read the article

  • How to Stop Current Playing Song When using one thread with JLayer?

    - by mcnemesis
    I recently used a solution to the one-thread-at-a-time problem whe using Jlayer to play mp3 songs in Java. But this solution by Kaleb Brasee didn't hint at how you could stop the player, i.e how could one then call player.close()? Kaleb's code was: Executor executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); executor.execute(new Runnable() { public void run() { /* do something */ } }); and this is the code I put in run() if(player != null) player.close(); try{ player = new Player(new FileInputStream(musicD.getPath())); player.play(); }catch(Exception e){} The problem is that much as this solves the problem of keeping the gui active while the music plays (in only one other thread -- what i'd wanted), I can't start playing another song :-( What could I do?

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with locking non-static fields? What is the correct way to lock a particular instance?

    - by smartcaveman
    Why is it considered bad practice to lock non-static fields? And, if I am not locking non-static fields, then how do I lock an instance method without locking the method on all other instances of the same or derived class? I wrote an example to make my question more clear. public abstract class BaseClass { private readonly object NonStaticLockObject = new object(); private static readonly object StaticLockObject = new object(); protected void DoThreadSafeAction<T>(Action<T> action) where T: BaseClass { var derived = this as T; if(derived == null) { throw new Exception(); } lock(NonStaticLockObject) { action(derived); } } } public class DerivedClass :BaseClass { private readonly Queue<object> _queue; public void Enqueue(object obj) { DoThreadSafeAction<DerivedClass>(x=>x._queue.Enqueue(obj)); } } If I make the lock on the StaticLockObject, then the DoThreadSafeAction method will be locked for all instances of all classes that derive from BaseClass and that is not what I want. I want to make sure that no other threads can call a method on a particular instance of an object while it is locked.

    Read the article

  • Java threads, wait time always 00:00:00-Producer/Consumer

    - by user3742254
    I am currently doing a producer consumer problem with a number of threads and have had to set priorities and waits to them to ensure that one thread, the security thread, runs last. I have managed to do this and I have managed to get the buffer working. The last thing that I am required to do is to show the wait time of threads that are too large for the buffer and to calculate the average wait time. I have included code to do so, but everything I run the program, the wait time is always returned as 00:00:00, and by extension, the average is returned as the same. I was speaking to one of my colleagues who said that it is not a matter of the code but rather a matter of the computer needing to work off of one processor, which can be adjusted in the task manager settings. He has an HP like myself but his program prints the wait time 180 times, whereas mine prints usually about 3-7 times and is only 00:00:01 on one instance before finishing when I have made the processor adjustments. My other colleague has an iMac and hers puts out an average of 42:00:34(42 minutes??) I am very confused about this because I can see no difference between our codes and like my colleague said, I was wondering is it a computer issue. I am obviously concerned as I wanted to make sure that my code correctly calculated an average wait time, but that is impossible to tell when the wait times always show as 00:00:00. To calculate the thread duration, including the time it entered and exited the buffer was done by using a timestamp import, and then subtracting start time from end time. Is my code correct for this issue or is there something which is missing? I would be very grateful for any solutions. Below is my code: My buffer class package com.Com813cw; import java.text.DateFormat; import java.text.SimpleDateFormat; /** * Created by Rory on 10/08/2014. */ class Buffer { private int contents, count = 0, process = 200; private int totalRam = 1000; private boolean available = false; private long start, end, wait, request = 0; private DateFormat time = new SimpleDateFormat("ss:SSS"); public int avWaitTime =0; public void average(){ System.out.println("Average Application Request wait time: "+ time.format(request/count)); } public synchronized int get() { while (process <= 500) { try { wait(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } } process -= 200; System.out.println("CPU After Process " + process); notifyAll(); return contents; } public synchronized void put(int value) { if (process <= 500) { process += value; } else { start = System.currentTimeMillis(); try { wait(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } end = System.currentTimeMillis(); wait = end - start; count++; request += wait; System.out.println("Application Request Wait Time: " + time.format(wait)); process += value; contents = value; calcWait(wait, count); } notifyAll(); } public void calcWait(long wait, int count){ this.avWaitTime = (int) (wait/count); } public void printWait(){ System.out.println("Wait time is " + time.format(this.avWaitTime)); } } My spotify class package com.Com813cw; import java.sql.Timestamp; /** * Created by Rory on 11/08/2014. */ class Spotify extends Thread { private Buffer buffer; private int number; private int bytes = 250; public Spotify(Buffer c, int number) { buffer = c; this.number = number; } long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); public void run() { for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { buffer.put(bytes); System.out.println(getName() + this.number + " put: " + bytes + " bytes "); try { sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } } long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); long timeTaken = endTime - startTime; java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date(); System.out.println("-----------------------------"); System.out.println("Spotify has finished executing."); System.out.println("Time taken to execute was " + timeTaken + " milliseconds"); System.out.println("Time that Spotify thread exited Buffer was " + new Timestamp(date.getTime())); System.out.println("-----------------------------"); } } My BubbleWitch class package com.Com813cw; import java.lang.*; import java.lang.System; import java.sql.Timestamp; /** * Created by Rory on 10/08/2014. */ class BubbleWitch2 extends Thread { private Buffer buffer; private int number; private int bytes = 100; public BubbleWitch2(Buffer c, int number) { buffer = c; this.number=number ; } long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); public void run() { for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { buffer.put(bytes); System.out.println(getName() + this.number + " put: " + bytes + " bytes "); try { sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } } long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); long timeTaken = endTime - startTime; java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date(); System.out.println("-----------------------------"); System.out.println("BubbleWitch2 has finished executing."); System.out.println("Time taken to execute was " +timeTaken+ " milliseconds"); System.out.println("Time Bubblewitch2 thread exited Buffer was " + new Timestamp(date.getTime())); System.out.println("-----------------------------"); } } My Test class package com.Com813cw; /** * Created by Rory on 10/08/2014. */ public class ProducerConsumerTest { public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException { Buffer c = new Buffer(); BubbleWitch2 p1 = new BubbleWitch2(c,1); Processor c1 = new Processor(c, 1); Spotify p2 = new Spotify(c, 2); SystemManagement p3 = new SystemManagement(c, 3); SecurityUpdate p4 = new SecurityUpdate(c, 4, p1, p2, p3); p1.setName("BubbleWitch2 "); p2.setName("Spotify "); p3.setName("System Management "); p4.setName("Security Update "); p1.setPriority(10); p2.setPriority(10); p3.setPriority(10); p4.setPriority(5); c1.start(); p1.start(); p2.start(); p3.start(); p4.start(); p2.join(); p3.join(); p4.join(); c.average(); System.exit(0); } } My security update package com.Com813cw; import java.lang.*; import java.lang.System; import java.sql.Timestamp; /** * Created by Rory on 11/08/2014. */ class SecurityUpdate extends Thread { private Buffer buffer; private int number; private int bytes = 150; private int process = 0; public SecurityUpdate(Buffer c, int number, BubbleWitch2 bubbleWitch2, Spotify spotify, SystemManagement systemManagement) throws InterruptedException { buffer = c; this.number = number; bubbleWitch2.join(); spotify.join(); systemManagement.join(); } long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); public void run() { for (int i = 0; i < 15; i++) { buffer.put(bytes); System.out.println(getName() + this.number + " put: " + bytes + " bytes"); try { sleep(1500); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } } long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); long timeTaken = endTime - startTime; java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date(); System.out.println("-----------------------------"); System.out.println("Security Update has finished executing."); System.out.println("Time taken to execute was " + timeTaken + " milliseconds"); System.out.println("Time that SecurityUpdate thread exited Buffer was " + new Timestamp(date.getTime())); System.out.println("------------------------------"); } } I'd be grateful as I said for any help as this is the last and most frustrating obstacle.

    Read the article

  • Async call Objective C iphone

    - by Sam
    Hi guys, I'm trying to get data from a website- xml. Everything works fine. But the UIButton remains pressed until the xml data is returned and thus if theres a problem with the internet service, it cant be corrected and the app is virtually unusable. here are the calls: { AppDelegate *appDelegate = (AppDelegate *)[[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate]; if(!appDelegate.XMLdataArray.count > 0){ [UIApplication sharedApplication].networkActivityIndicatorVisible = YES; [appDelegate GetApps]; //function that retrieves data from Website and puts into the array - XMLdataArray. } XMLViewController *controller = [[XMLViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"MedGearsApps" bundle:nil]; [self.navigationController pushViewController:controller animated:YES]; [controller release]; } It works fine, but how can I make the view buttons functional with getting stuck. In other words, I just want the UIButton and other UIButtons to be functional whiles the thing works in the background. I heard about performSelectorInMainThread but i cant put it to practice correctly any help is appreciated :)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >