Search Results

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

Page 38/66 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • C# parameter count mismatch when trying to add AsyncCallback into BeginInvoke()

    - by PunX
    I have main form (PrenosForm) and I am trying to run Form2 asynchronously. It works without callback delegate: this.BeginInvoke(cp, new object[] { datoteke, this.treeView1.SelectedNode.FullPath.ToString(), this, efekt }, null); //works 1. Doesn't work with callback delegate (parameter count mismatch): this.BeginInvoke(cp, new object[] { datoteke, this.treeView1.SelectedNode.FullPath.ToString(), this, efekt }, new AsyncCallback(callBackDelegate), null); //doesn't work parameter count mismatch 2. Works with callback delegate if I do it like this: cp.BeginInvoke(datoteke, this.treeView1.SelectedNode.FullPath.ToString(), this, efekt, new AsyncCallback(callBackDelegate), null); //works 3. My question is why does one way work and the other doesn't? I'm new at this. Would anyone be so kind as to answer my question and point out my mistakes? private delegate void copyDelegat(List<ListViewItem> datoteke, string path, PrenosForm forma, DragDropEffects efekt); private delegate void callBackDelegat(IAsyncResult a); public void doCopy(List<ListViewItem> datoteke, string path, PrenosForm forma, DragDropEffects efekt) { new Form2(datoteke, path, forma, efekt); } public void callBackFunc(IAsyncResult a) { AsyncResult res = a.AsyncState as AsyncResult; copyDelegat delegat = res.AsyncDelegate as copyDelegat; delegat.EndInvoke(a); } public void kopiraj(List<ListViewItem> datoteke, DragDropEffects efekt) { copyDelegat cp = new copyDelegat(doCopy); callBackDelegat callBackDelegate = new callBackDelegat(callBackFunc); this.BeginInvoke(cp, new object[] { datoteke, this.treeView1.SelectedNode.FullPath.ToString(), this, efekt }, new AsyncCallback(callBackDelegate), null); //doesn't work parameter count missmatch 2. this.BeginInvoke(cp, new object[] { datoteke, this.treeView1.SelectedNode.FullPath.ToString(), this, efekt }, null); //works 1. cp.BeginInvoke(datoteke, this.treeView1.SelectedNode.FullPath.ToString(), this, efekt, new AsyncCallback(callBackDelegate), null); //works 3. }

    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 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

  • Does add() on LinkedBlockingQueue notify waiting threads?

    - by obvio171
    I have a consumer thread taking elements from a LinkedBlockingQueue, and I make it sleep manually when it's empty. I use peek() to see if the queue empty because I have to do stuff because sending the thread to sleep, and I do that with queue.wait(). So, when I'm in another thread and add()an element to the queue, does that automatically notify the thread that was wait()ing on the queue?

    Read the article

  • multi-thread in MS Access, async processing

    - by LanguaFlash
    I know that title sounds crazy but here is my situation. After a certain user event I need to update a couple tables that are "unrelated" to what the user is currently doing. Currently this takes a couple seconds to execute and causes the user a certain amount of frustration. Is there a way to perform my update in a second process or in a manner that doesn't "freeze" the UI of my app while it is processing? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to automatically run in the background?

    - by Hun1Ahpu
    I'm not sure that it's not implemented yet, I hope that it is. But I know that in .Net programmers should manually run time-consuming task in the background thread. So every time we handle some UI event and we understand that this will take some time we also understand that this will hang UI thread and our application. And then we make all this Background work things and handle callbacks or whatever. So my question is: Is there in some language/platform a mechanism that will automatically run time-consuming tasks in the background and will do all related work itself? So we just write the code for handling specific UI event and this code will be somehow detected as time-consuming and will be executed in background. And if there isn't, then why?

    Read the article

  • WinForm-style Invoke() in unmanaged C++

    - by Matt Green
    I've been playing with a DataBus-type design for a hobby project, and I ran into an issue. Back-end components need to notify the UI that something has happened. My implementation of the bus delivers the messages synchronously with respect to the sender. In other words, when you call Send(), the method blocks until all the handlers have called. (This allows callers to use stack memory management for event objects.) However, consider the case where an event handler updates the GUI in response to an event. If the handler is called, and the message sender lives on another thread, then the handler cannot update the GUI due to Win32's GUI elements having thread affinity. More dynamic platforms such as .NET allow you to handle this by calling a special Invoke() method to move the method call (and the arguments) to the UI thread. I'm guessing they use the .NET parking window or the like for these sorts of things. A morbid curiosity was born: can we do this in C++, even if we limit the scope of the problem? Can we make it nicer than existing solutions? I know Qt does something similar with the moveToThread() function. By nicer, I'll mention that I'm specifically trying to avoid code of the following form: if(! this->IsUIThread()) { Invoke(MainWindowPresenter::OnTracksAdded, e); return; } being at the top of every UI method. This dance was common in WinForms when dealing with this issue. I think this sort of concern should be isolated from the domain-specific code and a wrapper object made to deal with it. My implementation consists of: DeferredFunction - functor that stores the target method in a FastDelegate, and deep copies the single event argument. This is the object that is sent across thread boundaries. UIEventHandler - responsible for dispatching a single event from the bus. When the Execute() method is called, it checks the thread ID. If it does not match the UI thread ID (set at construction time), a DeferredFunction is allocated on the heap with the instance, method, and event argument. A pointer to it is sent to the UI thread via PostThreadMessage(). Finally, a hook function for the thread's message pump is used to call the DeferredFunction and de-allocate it. Alternatively, I can use a message loop filter, since my UI framework (WTL) supports them. Ultimately, is this a good idea? The whole message hooking thing makes me leery. The intent is certainly noble, but are there are any pitfalls I should know about? Or is there an easier way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Proper way to have an endless worker thread?

    - by Neil N
    I have an object that requires a lot of initialization (1-2 seconds on a beefy machine). Though once it is initialized it only takes about 20 miliseconds to do a typical "job" In order to prevent it from being re-initialized every time an app wants to use it (which could be 50 times a second or not at all for minutes in typical usage), I decided to give it a job que, and have it run on its own thread, checking to see if there is any work for it in the que. However I'm not entirely sure how to make a thread that runs indefinetly with or without work. Here's what I have so far, any critique is welcomed private void DoWork() { while (true) { if (JobQue.Count > 0) { // do work on JobQue.Pop() } else { System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(50); } } } After thought: I was thinking I may need to kill this thread gracefully insead of letting it run forever, so I think I will add a Job type that tells the thread to end. Any thoughts on how to end a thread like this also appreciated.

    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

  • 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

  • How to implement wait(); to wait for a notifyAll(); from enter button?

    - by Dakota Miller
    Sorry for the confusion I posted the Worng Logcat info. I updated the question. I want to click Start to start a thread then when enter is clicked i want the thad to continue and get the message and handle the message in the thread then output it to the main thread and update the text view. How would i start a thread to wait for enter to be pressed and get the bundle for the Handler? Here is my Code: public class MainActivity extends Activity implements OnClickListener { Handler mHandler; Button enter; Button start; TextView display; String dateString; @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.activity_main); enter = (Button) findViewById(R.id.enter); start = (Button) findViewById(R.id.start); display = (TextView) findViewById(R.id.Display); enter.setOnClickListener(this); start.setOnClickListener(this); mHandler = new Handler() { <=============================This is Line 31 public void handleMessage(Message msg) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub super.handleMessage(msg); Bundle bundle = msg.getData(); String string = bundle.getString("outKey"); display.setText(string); } }; } @Override public boolean onCreateOptionsMenu(Menu menu) { // Inflate the menu; this adds items to the action bar if it is present. getMenuInflater().inflate(R.menu.main, menu); return true; } @Override public void onClick(View v) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub switch (v.getId()) { case R.id.enter: Message msgin = Message.obtain(); Bundle bundlein = new Bundle(); String in = "It Works!"; bundlein.putString("inKey", in); msgin.setData(bundlein); notifyAll(); break; case R.id.start: new myThread().hello.start(); break; } } public class myThread extends Thread { Thread hello = new Thread() { @Override public void run() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub super.run(); Looper.prepare(); try { wait(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } Handler Mhandler = new Handler() { @Override public void handleMessage(Message msg) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub super.handleMessage(msg); Bundle bundle = msg.getData(); dateString = bundle.getString("inKey"); } }; Looper.loop(); Message msg = Message.obtain(); Bundle bundle = new Bundle(); bundle.putString("outKey", dateString); msg.setData(bundle); mHandler.sendMessage(msg); } }; } } Here is the logcat info: 06-27 00:00:24.832: E/AndroidRuntime(18513): FATAL EXCEPTION: Thread-1210 06-27 00:00:24.832: E/AndroidRuntime(18513): java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException: object not locked by thread before wait() 06-27 00:00:24.832: E/AndroidRuntime(18513): at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method) 06-27 00:00:24.832: E/AndroidRuntime(18513): at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:364) 06-27 00:00:24.832: E/AndroidRuntime(18513): at com .example.learninghandlers.MainActivity$myThread$1.run(MainActivity.java:77)

    Read the article

  • Unresponsive UI when using BeginInvoke

    - by Kazoom
    Bckground I have a networked application written in C#. my server program has a UI and several communication threads, that read from tcp sockets and display messages on controller UI. Communication with each client is done through a seprate thread. When i recieve some stream of messages from one client , the thread for that client writes on UI, which is a richtextbox on a Form. I call SetTextHelper(string text) method of the form. which looks like this private delegate void MyTextUpdateHandler(string text); public void SetTextHelper(string text) { BeginInvoke(new MyTextUpdateHandler(SetText), new object[] { text }); } public setText(string text) { richtext.Text= text; } Question - If i use BeginInvoke my UI is entirely unresponsive when i m writing large stream of data to UI - Invoke solves that problem, but i read that for multi threaded environment where many thereads are sharing same resource Invoke can lead to deadlocks I share the common ichtextbox between around 16 threads - What would be a good desing for my situation?

    Read the article

  • Can getAttribute() method of Tomcat ServletContext implementation be called without synchronization?

    - by oo_olo_oo
    I would like to read some parameters during servlet initializtion (in init() method), and store them among servlet context attributes (using getServletContext().setAttribute()). I would like to read these parameters later - during some request processing (using getServletContext().getAttribute()). So, the multiple threads could do this simultaneously. My question is if such an attempt is safe? Could I be sure that multi threaded calls to the getAttribute() don't mess up any internal state of the servlet context? Please take into account that I'm not going to call the setAttribute() anywhere besides the initialization. So, only calls to the getAttribute() are going to be done from multiple threads. But depending on the internal implementation, this also could be dangerous. So, any information about Tomcat's implementation would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • iPhone: One Object, One Thread

    - by GingerBreadMane
    On the iPhone, I would like to do some operations on an image in a separate thread. Rather than dealing with semiphores, locking, etc., I'd like to use the 'One Object, One Thread' method of safely writing this concurrent operation. I'm not sure what is the correct way to copy my object into a new thread so that the object is not accessed in the main thread. Do I use the 'copy' method? If so, do I do this before the thread or inside the thread? ... -(void)someMethod{ UIImage *myImage; [NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(getRotatedImage:) toTarget:self withObject:myImage]; } -(void)getRotatedImage:(UIImage *)image{ ... ... UIImage *copiedImage = [image copy]; ... ... }

    Read the article

  • Can I avoid a threaded UDP socket in Python dropping data?

    - by 666craig
    First off, I'm new to Python and learning on the job, so be gentle! I'm trying to write a threaded Python app for Windows that reads data from a UDP socket (thread-1), writes it to file (thread-2), and displays the live data (thread-3) to a widget (gtk.Image using a gtk.gdk.pixbuf). I'm using queues for communicating data between threads. My problem is that if I start only threads 1 and 3 (so skip the file writing for now), it seems that I lose some data after the first few samples. After this drop it looks fine. Even by letting thread 1 complete before running thread 3, this apparent drop is still there. Apologies for the length of code snippet (I've removed the thread that writes to file), but I felt removing code would just prompt questions. Hope someone can shed some light :-) import socket import threading import Queue import numpy import gtk gtk.gdk.threads_init() import gtk.glade import pygtk class readFromUDPSocket(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, socketUDP, readDataQueue, packetSize, numScans): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.socketUDP = socketUDP self.readDataQueue = readDataQueue self.packetSize = packetSize self.numScans = numScans def run(self): for scan in range(1, self.numScans + 1): buffer = self.socketUDP.recv(self.packetSize) self.readDataQueue.put(buffer) self.socketUDP.close() print 'myServer finished!' class displayWithGTK(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, displayDataQueue, image, viewArea): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.displayDataQueue = displayDataQueue self.image = image self.viewWidth = viewArea[0] self.viewHeight = viewArea[1] self.displayData = numpy.zeros((self.viewHeight, self.viewWidth, 3), dtype=numpy.uint16) def run(self): scan = 0 try: while True: if not scan % self.viewWidth: scan = 0 buffer = self.displayDataQueue.get(timeout=0.1) self.displayData[:, scan, 0] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) self.displayData[:, scan, 1] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) self.displayData[:, scan, 2] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) gtk.gdk.threads_enter() self.myPixbuf = gtk.gdk.pixbuf_new_from_data(self.displayData.tostring(), gtk.gdk.COLORSPACE_RGB, False, 8, self.viewWidth, self.viewHeight, self.viewWidth * 3) self.image.set_from_pixbuf(self.myPixbuf) self.image.show() gtk.gdk.threads_leave() scan += 1 except Queue.Empty: print 'myDisplay finished!' pass def quitGUI(obj): print 'Currently active threads: %s' % threading.enumerate() gtk.main_quit() if __name__ == '__main__': # Create socket (IPv4 protocol, datagram (UDP)) and bind to address socketUDP = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM) host = '192.168.1.5' port = 1024 socketUDP.bind((host, port)) # Data parameters samplesPerScan = 256 packetsPerSecond = 1200 packetSize = 512 duration = 1 # For now, set a fixed duration to log data numScans = int(packetsPerSecond * duration) # Create array to store data data = numpy.zeros((samplesPerScan, numScans), dtype=numpy.uint16) # Create queue for displaying from readDataQueue = Queue.Queue(numScans) # Build GUI from Glade XML file builder = gtk.Builder() builder.add_from_file('GroundVue.glade') window = builder.get_object('mainwindow') window.connect('destroy', quitGUI) view = builder.get_object('viewport') image = gtk.Image() view.add(image) viewArea = (1200, samplesPerScan) # Instantiate & start threads myServer = readFromUDPSocket(socketUDP, readDataQueue, packetSize, numScans) myDisplay = displayWithGTK(readDataQueue, image, viewArea) myServer.start() myDisplay.start() gtk.gdk.threads_enter() gtk.main() gtk.gdk.threads_leave() print 'gtk.main finished!'

    Read the article

  • Polling servers at the same port - Threads and Java

    - by John
    Hi there. I'm currently busy working on an IP ban tool for the early versions of Call of Duty 1. (Apparently such a feature wasn't implemented in these versions). I've finished a single threaded application but it won't perform well enough for multiple servers, which is why I am trying to implement threading. Right now, each server has its own thread. I have a Networking class, which has a method; "GetStatus" -- this method is synchronized. This method uses a DatagramSocket to communicate with the server. Since this method is static and synchronized, I shouldn't get in trouble and receive a whole bunch of "Address already in use" exceptions. However, I have a second method named "SendMessage". This method is supposed to send a message to the server. How can I make sure "SendMessage" cannot be invoked when there's already a thread running in "GetStatus", and the other way around? If I make both synchronized, I will still get in trouble if Thread A is opening a socket on Port 99999 and invoking "SendMessage" while Thread B is opening a socket on the same port and invoking "GetStatus"? (Game servers are usually hosted on the same ports) I guess what I am really after is a way to make an entire class synchronized, so that only one method can be invoked and run at a time by a single thread. Hope that what I am trying to accomplish/avoid is made clear in this text. Any help is greatly appreciated.

    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

  • Java - Call to start method on thread : how does it route to Runnable interface's run () ?

    - by Bhaskar
    Ok , I know the two standard ways to create a new thread and run it in Java : 1 Implement Runnable in a class , define run method ,and pass an instance of the class to a new Thread. When the start method on the thread instance is called , the run method of the class instance will be invoked. 2 Let the class derive from Thread, so it can to override the method run() and then when a new instance's start method is called , the call is routed to overridden method. In both methods , basically a new Thread object is created and its start method invoked. However , while in the second method , the mechanism of the call being routed to the user defined run() method is very clear ,( its a simple runtime polymorphism in play ), I dont understand how the call to start method on the Thread object gets routed to run() method of the class implementing Runnable interface. Does the Thread class have an private field of Type Runnable which it checks first , and if it is set then invokes the run method if it set to an object ? that would be a strange mechanism IMO. How does the call to start() on a thread get routed to the run method of the Runnable interface implemented by the class whose object is passed as a parameter when contructing the thread ?

    Read the article

  • How to maintain a pool of names ?

    - by Jacques René Mesrine
    I need to maintain a list of userids (proxy accounts) which will be dished out to multithreaded clients. Basically the clients will use the userids to perform actions; but for this question, it is not important what these actions are. When a client gets hold of a userid, it is not available to other clients until the action is completed. I'm trying to think of a concurrent data structure to maintain this pool of userids. Any ideas ? Would a ConcurrentQueue do the job ? Clients will dequeue a userid, and add back the userid when they are finished with it.

    Read the article

  • How do I create a thread-safe write-once read-many value in Java?

    - by Software Monkey
    This is a problem I encounter frequently in working with more complex systems and which I have never figured out a good way to solve. It usually involves variations on the theme of a shared object whose construction and initialization are necessarily two distinct steps. This is generally because of architectural requirements, similar to applets, so answers that suggest I consolidate construction and initialization are not useful. By way of example, let's say I have a class that is structured to fit into an application framework like so: public class MyClass { private /*ideally-final*/ SomeObject someObject; MyClass() { someObject=null; } public void startup() { someObject=new SomeObject(...arguments from environment which are not available until startup is called...); } public void shutdown() { someObject=null; // this is not necessary, I am just expressing the intended scope of someObject explicitly } } I can't make someObject final since it can't be set until startup() is invoked. But I would really like it to reflect it's write-once semantics and be able to directly access it from multiple threads, preferably avoiding synchronization. The idea being to express and enforce a degree of finalness, I conjecture that I could create a generic container, like so: public class WoRmObject<T> { private T object; WoRmObject() { object=null; } public WoRmObject set(T val) { object=val; return this; } public T get() { return object; } } and then in MyClass, above, do: private final WoRmObject<SomeObject> someObject; MyClass() { someObject=new WoRmObject<SomeObject>(); } public void startup() { someObject.set(SomeObject(...arguments from environment which are not available until startup is called...)); } Which raises some questions for me: Is there a better way, or existing Java object (would have to be available in Java 4)? Is this thread-safe provided that no other thread accesses someObject.get() until after it's set() has been called. The other threads will only invoke methods on MyClass between startup() and shutdown() - the framework guarantees this. Given the completely unsynchronized WoRmObject container, it is ever possible under either JMM to see a value of object which is neither null nor a reference to a SomeObject? In other words, does has the JMM always guaranteed that no thread can observe the memory of an object to be whatever values happened to be on the heap when the object was allocated.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >