Search Results

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

Page 37/66 | < Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >

  • Why AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent does not support name in the constructor?

    - by Ikaso
    On .NET Framework 2.0 AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent inherit from EventWaitHandle. The EventWaitHandle class has 4 different constructors. 3 of the constructors support giving a name to the event. On the other hand both ManualResetEvent and AutoResetEvent do not support naming and provide a single constructor that receives the initialState. I can simply inherit from EventWaitHandle and write my own implementation of those classes that support all the constructor overloads, but I don't like to re-invent the wheel if I do not have to. My questions are: Is there a special problem in naming events? Do you have any idea why Microsoft did not support it? Do you have a proposal better than inheriting from the EventWaitHandle class and calling the appropriate constructor as in the following example? public class MyAutoResetEvent: EventWaitHandle { public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset) { } public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState, string name) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset, name) { } public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState, string name, out bool createdNew) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset, name, out createdNew) { } public MyAutoResetEvent(bool initialState, string name, out bool createdNew, EventWaitHandleSecurity eventSecurity) : base(initialState, EventResetMode.AutoReset, string.Empty, out createdNew, eventSecurity) { } }

    Read the article

  • Which async call use for DB connection and still responsive GUI?--

    - by Jade
    Hi, My application connects to MSSQL but sometimes it takes a while and the GUI is getting frozen. I would like to do the connection on the other thread, I guess BeginInvoke would be the best way (I know about background worker but I would like to learn this). I have studied MSDN page but I did not understand what is the best way to use? They also say that you can use only callback when the thread that called the async.method does not need to know the results...I dont understand it as I believe I can set some variable in the other thread to "pass" the result well. I would just need the GUI to be not frozen while the connection is being established. Thank you for your advice.

    Read the article

  • How would you implement this "WorkerChain" functionality in .NET?

    - by Dan Tao
    Sorry for the vague question title -- not sure how to encapsulate what I'm asking below succinctly. (If someone with editing privileges can think of a more descriptive title, feel free to change it.) The behavior I need is this. I am envisioning a worker class that accepts a single delegate task in its constructor (for simplicity, I would make it immutable -- no more tasks can be added after instantiation). I'll call this task T. The class should have a simple method, something like GetToWork, that will exhibit this behavior: If the worker is not currently running T, then it will start doing so right now. If the worker is currently running T, then once it is finished, it will start T again immediately. GetToWork can be called any number of times while the worker is running T; the simple rule is that, during any execution of T, if GetToWork was called at least once, T will run again upon completion (and then if GetToWork is called while T is running that time, it will repeat itself again, etc.). Now, this is pretty straightforward with a boolean switch. But this class needs to be thread-safe, by which I mean, steps 1 and 2 above need to comprise atomic operations (at least I think they do). There is an added layer of complexity. I have need of a "worker chain" class that will consist of many of these workers linked together. As soon as the first worker completes, it essentially calls GetToWork on the worker after it; meanwhile, if its own GetToWork has been called, it restarts itself as well. Logically calling GetToWork on the chain is essentially the same as calling GetToWork on the first worker in the chain (I would fully intend that the chain's workers not be publicly accessible). One way to imagine how this hypothetical "worker chain" would behave is by comparing it to a team in a relay race. Suppose there are four runners, W1 through W4, and let the chain be called C. If I call C.StartWork(), what should happen is this: If W1 is at his starting point (i.e., doing nothing), he will start running towards W2. If W1 is already running towards W2 (i.e., executing his task), then once he reaches W2, he will signal to W2 to get started, immediately return to his starting point and, since StartWork has been called, start running towards W2 again. When W1 reaches W2's starting point, he'll immediately return to his own starting point. If W2 is just sitting around, he'll start running immediately towards W3. If W2 is already off running towards W3, then W2 will simply go again once he's reached W3 and returned to his starting point. The above is probably a little convoluted and written out poorly. But hopefully you get the basic idea. Obviously, these workers will be running on their own threads. Also, I guess it's possible this functionality already exists somewhere? If that's the case, definitely let me know!

    Read the article

  • Returning from method inside a @synchronized block

    - by Michael Waterfall
    I'd just like to know if it's advised to return from a method within a @synchronized block? For example: - (id)test { @synchronized(self) { if (a) return @"A"; else return @"B"; } } As opposed to: - (id)test { NSString *value; @synchronized(self) { if (a) value = @"A"; else value = @"B"; } return value; } This sample is rather simplistic, but sometimes in a complex method it would make things simpler to be able to return from within a @synchronized block.

    Read the article

  • If I allocate memory in one thread in C++ can I de-allocate it in another

    - by Shane MacLaughlin
    If I allocate memory in one thread in C++ (either new or malloc) can I de-allocate it in another, or must both occur in the same thread? Ideally, I'd like to avoid this in the first place, but I'm curious to know is it legal, illegal or implementation dependent. Edit: The compilers I'm currently using include VS2003, VS2008 and Embedded C++ 4.0, targetting XP, Vista, Windows 7 and various flavours of Windows CE / PocketPC & Mobile. So basically all Microsoft but across an array of esoteric platforms.

    Read the article

  • Issue with Java join() method.

    - by gmunk
    First of all here are some code snippets: http://pastebin.com/9ZCwekXs http://pastebin.com/TtLLXPYP I'm trying to animate some images. The thing is that I want the main thread to wait for the animation thread to finish and then to continue. I searched around, read a little bit and decided to use the join() method. It perfectly waits for the thread to finish but I doesn't animate correctly. The repaint() method gets called 2 times instead of nine. I think maybe the problem is because I used singletons. Here is the singleton implementation. http://pastebin.com/bA3qLZJE

    Read the article

  • Is this BlockingQueue susceptible to deadlock?

    - by unforgiven3
    I've been using this code as a queue that blocks on Dequeue() until an element is enqueued. I've used this code for a few years now in several projects, all with no issues... until now. I'm seeing a deadlock in some code I'm writing now, and in investigating the problem, my 'eye of suspicion' has settled on this BlockingQueue<T>. I can't prove it, so I figured I'd ask some people smarter than me to review it for potential issues. Can you guys see anything that might cause a deadlock in this code? public class BlockingQueue<T> { private readonly Queue<T> _queue; private readonly ManualResetEvent _event; /// <summary> /// Constructor /// </summary> public BlockingQueue() { _queue = new Queue<T>(); _event = new ManualResetEvent(false); } /// <summary> /// Read-only property to get the size of the queue /// </summary> public int Size { get { int count; lock (_queue) { count = _queue.Count; } return count; } } /// <summary> /// Enqueues element on the queue /// </summary> /// <param name="element">Element to enqueue</param> public void Enqueue(T element) { lock (_queue) { _queue.Enqueue(element); _event.Set(); } } /// <summary> /// Dequeues an element from the queue /// </summary> /// <returns>Dequeued element</returns> public T Dequeue() { T element; while (true) { if (Size == 0) { _event.Reset(); _event.WaitOne(); } lock (_queue) { if (_queue.Count == 0) continue; element = _queue.Dequeue(); break; } } return element; } /// <summary> /// Clears the queue /// </summary> public void Clear() { lock (_queue) { _queue.Clear(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Code runs 6 times slower with 2 threads than with 1

    - by Edward Bird
    So I have written some code to experiment with threads and do some testing. The code should create some numbers and then find the mean of those numbers. I think it is just easier to show you what I have so far. I was expecting with two threads that the code would run about 2 times as fast. Measuring it with a stopwatch I think it runs about 6 times slower! void findmean(std::vector<double>*, std::size_t, std::size_t, double*); int main(int argn, char** argv) { // Program entry point std::cout << "Generating data..." << std::endl; // Create a vector containing many variables std::vector<double> data; for(uint32_t i = 1; i <= 1024 * 1024 * 128; i ++) data.push_back(i); // Calculate mean using 1 core double mean = 0; std::cout << "Calculating mean, 1 Thread..." << std::endl; findmean(&data, 0, data.size(), &mean); mean /= (double)data.size(); // Print result std::cout << " Mean=" << mean << std::endl; // Repeat, using two threads std::vector<std::thread> thread; std::vector<double> result; result.push_back(0.0); result.push_back(0.0); std::cout << "Calculating mean, 2 Threads..." << std::endl; // Run threads uint32_t halfsize = data.size() / 2; uint32_t A = 0; uint32_t B, C, D; // Split the data into two blocks if(data.size() % 2 == 0) { B = C = D = halfsize; } else if(data.size() % 2 == 1) { B = C = halfsize; D = hsz + 1; } // Run with two threads thread.push_back(std::thread(findmean, &data, A, B, &(result[0]))); thread.push_back(std::thread(findmean, &data, C, D , &(result[1]))); // Join threads thread[0].join(); thread[1].join(); // Calculate result mean = result[0] + result[1]; mean /= (double)data.size(); // Print result std::cout << " Mean=" << mean << std::endl; // Return return EXIT_SUCCESS; } void findmean(std::vector<double>* datavec, std::size_t start, std::size_t length, double* result) { for(uint32_t i = 0; i < length; i ++) { *result += (*datavec).at(start + i); } } I don't think this code is exactly wonderful, if you could suggest ways of improving it then I would be grateful for that also.

    Read the article

  • Thread locking issue with FileHelpers between calling engine.ReadNext() method and readign engine.Li

    - by Rad
    I use producer/consumer pattern with FileHelpers library to import data from one file (which can be huge) using multiple threads. Each thread is supposed to import a chunk of that file and I would like to use LineNumber property of the FileHelperAsyncEngine instance that is reading the file as primary key for imported rows. FileHelperAsyncEngine internally has an IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator(); which is iterated over using engine.ReadNext() method. That internally sets LineNumber property (which seems is not thread safe). Consumers will have Producers assiciated with them that will supply DataTables to Consumers which will consume them via SqlBulkLoad class which will use IDataReader implementation which will iterate over a collection of DataTables which are internal to a Consumer instance. Each instance of will have one SqlBulkCopy instance associate with it. I have thread locking issue. Below is how I create multiple Producer threads. I start each thread afterwords. Produce method on a producer instance will be called determining which chunk of input file will be processed. It seems that engine.LineNumber is not thread safe and I doesn't import a proper LineNumber in the database. It seems that by the time engine.LineNumber is read some other thread called engine.ReadNext() and changed engine.LineNumber property. I don't want to lock the loop that is supposed to process a chunk of input file because I loose parallelism. How to reorganize the code to solve this threading issue? Thanks Rad for (int i = 0; i < numberOfProducerThreads; i++) DataConsumer consumer = dataConsumers[i]; //create a new producer DataProducer producer = new DataProducer(); //consumer has already being created consumer.Subscribe(producer); FileHelperAsyncEngine orderDetailEngine = new FileHelperAsyncEngine(recordType); orderDetailEngine.Options.RecordCondition.Condition = RecordCondition.ExcludeIfBegins; orderDetailEngine.Options.RecordCondition.Selector = STR_ORDR; int skipLines = i * numberOfBufferTablesToProcess * DataBuffer.MaxBufferRowCount; Thread newThread = new Thread(() => { producer.Produce(consumer, inputFilePath, lineNumberFieldName, dict, orderDetailEngine, skipLines, numberOfBufferTablesToProcess); consumer.SetEndOfData(producer); }); producerThreads.Add(newThread); thread.Start();} public void Produce(DataConsumer consumer, string inputFilePath, string lineNumberFieldName, Dictionary<string, object> dict, FileHelperAsyncEngine engine, int skipLines, int numberOfBufferTablesToProcess) { lock (this) { engine.Options.IgnoreFirstLines = skipLines; engine.BeginReadFile(inputFilePath); } int rowCount = 1; DataTable buffer = consumer.BufferDataTable; while (engine.ReadNext() != null) { lock (this) { dict[lineNumberFieldName] = engine.LineNumber; buffer.Rows.Add(ObjectFieldsDataRowMapper.MapObjectFieldsToDataRow(engine.LastRecord, dict, buffer)); if (rowCount % DataBuffer.MaxBufferRowCount == 0) { consumer.AddBufferDataTable(buffer); buffer = consumer.BufferDataTable; } if (rowCount % (numberOfBufferTablesToProcess * DataBuffer.MaxBufferRowCount) == 0) { break; } rowCount++; } } if (buffer.Rows.Count > 0) { consumer.AddBufferDataTable(buffer); } engine.Close(); }

    Read the article

  • How can two threads access a common array of buffers with minimal blocking ? (c#)

    - by Jelly Amma
    Hello, I'm working on an image processing application where I have two threads on top of my main thread: 1 - CameraThread that captures images from the webcam and writes them into a buffer 2 - ImageProcessingThread that takes the latest image from that buffer for filtering. The reason why this is multithreaded is because speed is critical and I need to have CameraThread to keep grabbing pictures and making the latest capture ready to pick up by ImageProcessingThread while it's still processing the previous image. My problem is about finding a fast and thread-safe way to access that common buffer and I've figured that, ideally, it should be a triple buffer (image[3]) so that if ImageProcessingThread is slow, then CameraThread can keep on writing on the two other images and vice versa. What sort of locking mechanism would be the most appropriate for this to be thread-safe ? I looked at the lock statement but it seems like it would make a thread block-waiting for another one to be finished and that would be against the point of triple buffering. Thanks in advance for any idea or advice. J.

    Read the article

  • Limiting the number of threads executing a method at a single time.

    - by Steve_
    We have a situation where we want to limit the number of paralell requests our application can make to its application server. We have potentially 100+ background threads running that will want to at some point make a call to the application server but only want 5 threads to be able to call SendMessage() (or whatever the method will be) at any one time. What is the best way of achieving this? I have considered using some sort of gatekeeper object that blocks threads coming into the method until the number of threads executing in it has dropped below the threshold. Would this be a reasonable solution or am I overlooking the fact that this might be dirty/dangerous? We are developing in C#.NET 3.5. Thanks, Steve

    Read the article

  • Testing approach for multi-threaded software

    - by Shane MacLaughlin
    I have a piece of mature geospatial software that has recently had areas rewritten to take better advantage of the multiple processors available in modern PCs. Specifically, display, GUI, spatial searching, and main processing have all been hived off to seperate threads. The software has a pretty sizeable GUI automation suite for functional regression, and another smaller one for performance regression. While all automated tests are passing, I'm not convinced that they provide nearly enough coverage in terms of finding bugs relating race conditions, deadlocks, and other nasties associated with multi-threading. What techniques would you use to see if such bugs exist? What techniques would you advocate for rooting them out, assuming there are some in there to root out? What I'm doing so far is running the GUI functional automation on the app running under a debugger, such that I can break out of deadlocks and catch crashes, and plan to make a bounds checker build and repeat the tests against that version. I've also carried out a static analysis of the source via PC-Lint with the hope of locating potential dead locks, but not had any worthwhile results. The application is C++, MFC, mulitple document/view, with a number of threads per doc. The locking mechanism I'm using is based on an object that includes a pointer to a CMutex, which is locked in the ctor and freed in the dtor. I use local variables of this object to lock various bits of code as required, and my mutex has a time out that fires my a warning if the timeout is reached. I avoid locking where possible, using resource copies where possible instead. What other tests would you carry out?

    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

  • Producer and Consumer Threads Hang

    - by user972425
    So this is my first foray into threads and thus far it is driving me insane. My problem seems to be some kind of synchronization error that causes my consumer thread to hang. I've looked at other code and just about everything I could find and I can't find what my error is. There also seems to be a discrepancy between the code being executed in Eclipse and via javac in the command line. Intention - Using a bounded buffer (with 1000 slots) create and consume 1,000,000 doubles. Use only notify and wait. Problem - In Eclipse the consumer thread will occasionally hang around 940,000 iterations, but other times completes. In the command line the consumer thread always hangs. Output - Eclipse - Successful Producer has produced 100000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 100000 doubles. Producer has produced 200000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 200000 doubles. Producer has produced 300000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 300000 doubles. Producer has produced 400000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 400000 doubles. Producer has produced 500000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 500000 doubles. Producer has produced 600000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 600000 doubles. Producer has produced 700000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 700000 doubles. Producer has produced 800000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 800000 doubles. Producer has produced 900000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 900000 doubles. Producer has produced 1000000 doubles. Producer has produced all items. Consumer has consumed 1000000 doubles. Consumer has consumed all items. Exitting Output - Command Line/Eclipse - Unsuccessful Producer has produced 100000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 100000 doubles. Producer has produced 200000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 200000 doubles. Producer has produced 300000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 300000 doubles. Producer has produced 400000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 400000 doubles. Producer has produced 500000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 500000 doubles. Producer has produced 600000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 600000 doubles. Producer has produced 700000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 700000 doubles. Producer has produced 800000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 800000 doubles. Producer has produced 900000 doubles. Consumer has consumed 900000 doubles. Producer has produced 1000000 doubles. Producer has produced all items. At this point it just sits and hangs. Any help you can provide about where I might have misstepped is greatly appreciated. Code - Producer thread import java.text.DecimalFormat;+ " doubles. Cumulative value of generated items= " + temp) import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class producer implements Runnable{ private buffer produceBuff; public producer (buffer buff){ produceBuff = buff; } public void run(){ Random random = new Random(); double temp = 0, randomElem; DecimalFormat df = new DecimalFormat("#.###"); for(int i = 1; i<=1000000; i++) { randomElem = (Double.parseDouble( df.format(random.nextDouble() * 100.0))); try { produceBuff.add(randomElem); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } temp+= randomElem; if(i%100000 == 0) {produceBuff.print("Producer has produced "+ i ); } } produceBuff.print("Producer has produced all items."); } } Consumer thread import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class consumer implements Runnable{ private buffer consumBuff; public consumer (buffer buff){ consumBuff = buff; } public void run(){ double temp = 0; for(int i = 1; i<=1000000; i++) { try { temp += consumBuff.get(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } if(i%100000 == 0) {consumBuff.print("Consumer has consumed "+ i ); //if(i>999000) //{System.out.println("Consuming item " + i);} } consumBuff.print("Consumer has consumed all items."); } } Buffer/Main import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class buffer { private double buff[]; private int addPlace; private int getPlace; public buffer(){ buff = new double[1000]; addPlace = 0; getPlace = 0; } public synchronized void add(double add) throws InterruptedException{ if((addPlace+1 == getPlace) ) { try { wait(); } catch (InterruptedException e) {throw e;} } buff[addPlace] = add; addPlace = (addPlace+1)%1000; notify(); } public synchronized double get()throws InterruptedException{ if(getPlace == addPlace) { try { wait(); } catch (InterruptedException e) {throw e;} } double temp = buff[getPlace]; getPlace = (getPlace+1)%1000; notify(); return temp; } public synchronized void print(String view) { System.out.println(view); } public static void main(String args[]){ buffer buf = new buffer(); Thread produce = new Thread(new producer(buf)); Thread consume = new Thread(new consumer(buf)); produce.start(); consume.start(); try { produce.join(); consume.join(); } catch (InterruptedException e) {return;} System.out.println("Exitting"); } }

    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

  • How to manage db connections on server?

    - by simpatico
    I have a severe problem with my database connection in my web application. Since I use a single database connection for the whole application from singleton Database class, if i try concurrent db operations (two users) the database rollsback the transactions. This is my static method used: All threads/servlets call static Database.doSomething(...) methods, which in turn call the the below method. private static /* synchronized*/ Connection getConnection(final boolean autoCommit) throws SQLException { if (con == null) { con = new MyRegistrationBean().getConnection(); } con.setAutoCommit(true); //TODO return con; } What's the recommended way to manage this db connection/s I have, so that I don't incurr in the same problem.

    Read the article

  • How does one implement a truly asynchronous java thread

    - by Ritesh M Nayak
    I have a function that needs to perfom two operations, one which finishes fast and one which takes a long time to run. I want to be able to delegate the long running operation to a thread and I dont care when the thread finishes, but the threads needs to complete. I implemented this as shown below , but, my secondoperation never gets done as the function exits after the start() call. How I can ensure that the function returns but the second operation thread finishes its execution as well and is not dependent on the parent thread ? public void someFunction(String data) { smallOperation() Blah a = new Blah(); Thread th = new Thread(a); th.Start(); } class SecondOperation implements Runnable { public void run(){ // doSomething long running } }

    Read the article

  • passing pipe to threads

    - by alaamh
    I see it's easy to open pipe between two process using fork, but how we can passing open pipe to threads. Assume we need to pass out of PROGRAM A to PROGRAM B "may by more than one thread", PROGRAM B send his output to PROGRAM C #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <pthread.h> struct targ_s { int fd_reader; }; void *thread1(void *arg) { struct targ_s *targ = (struct targ_s*) arg; int status, fd[2]; pid_t pid; pipe(fd); pid = fork(); if (pid == 0) { dup2(STDIN_FILENO, targ->fd_reader); close(fd[0]); dup2(fd[1], STDOUT_FILENO); close(fd[1]); execvp ("PROGRAM B", NULL); exit(1); } else { close(fd[1]); dup2(fd[0], STDIN_FILENO); close(fd[0]); execl("PROGRAM C", NULL); wait(&status); return NULL; } } int main(void) { FILE *fpipe; char *command = "PROGRAM A"; char buffer[1024]; if (!(fpipe = (FILE*) popen(command, "r"))) { perror("Problems with pipe"); exit(1); } char* outfile = "out.dat"; FILE* f = fopen (outfile, "wb"); int fd = fileno( f ); struct targ_s targ; targ.fd_reader = fd; pthread_t thid; if (pthread_create(&thid, NULL, thread1, &targ) != 0) { perror("pthread_create() error"); exit(1); } int len; while (read(fpipe, buffer, sizeof (buffer)) != 0) { len = strlen(buffer); write(fd, buffer, len); } pclose(fpipe); return (0); }

    Read the article

  • java methods and race condition in a jsp/servlets application.

    - by A.S al-shammari
    Hi. Suppose that I have a method called doSomething() and I want to use this method in a multithreaded application (each servlet inherits from HttpServlet).I'm wondering if it is possible that a race condition will occur in the following cases: doSomething() is not staic method and it writes values to a database. doSomething() is static method but it does not write values to a database. what I have noticed that many methods in my application may lead to a race condition or dirty read/write. for example , I have a Poll System , and for each voting operation, a certain method will change a single cell value for that poll as the following: [poll_id | poll_data ] [1 | {choice_1 : 10, choice_2 : 20}] will the JSP/Servlets app solve these issues by itself, or I have to solve all that by myself? Thanks..

    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

  • Reading ResultSet from multiple threads

    - by superdario
    Hello, In the database, I have a definition table that is read from the application once upon starting. This definition table rarely changes, so it makes sense to read it once and restart the application every time it changes. However, after the table is read (put into a ResultSet), it will be read by multiple handlers running in their own threads. How do you suggest to accomplish this? My idea was to populate a CachedRowSet, and then create a copy of this set (through the createCopy() method) for each handler every time a new request comes. Do you think this is wise? Does this offer a good performance? Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >