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 >

• How to synchronize threads in python?

  - by Eric

  I have two threads in python (2.7). I start them at the beginning of my program. While they execute, my program reaches the end and exits, killing both of my threads before waiting for resolution. I'm trying to figure out how to wait for both threads to finish before exiting. def connect_cam(ip, execute_lock): try: conn = TelnetConnection.TelnetClient(ip) execute_lock.acquire() ExecuteUpdate(conn, ip) execute_lock.release() except ValueError: pass execute_lock = thread.allocate_lock() thread.start_new_thread(connect_cam, ( headset_ip, execute_lock ) ) thread.start_new_thread(connect_cam, ( handcam_ip, execute_lock ) ) In .NET I would use something like WaitAll() but I haven't found the equivalent in python. In my scenario, TelnetClient is a long operation which may result in a failure after a timeout.

  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

• 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

• Multithreaded Multiplication of Large Non-sparse, Non-square Matrices in C/C++

  - by andand

  All, I'm looking for recommendations for C or C++ libraries (preferably open source) that use multi-threaded techniques to multiply large, non-square, (e.g. 65536xn in size where n < 65536) non-sparse matrices. Thanks. -&&

  Read the article

• Dynamically refresh JTextArea as processing occurs?

  - by digiarnie

  I am trying to create a very simple Swing UI that logs information onto the screen via a JTextArea as processing occurs in the background. When the user clicks a button, I want each call to: textArea.append(someString + "\n"); to immediately show up in the UI. At the moment, the JTextArea does not show all log information until the processing has completed after clicking the button. How can I get it to refresh dynamically?

  Read the article

• Java: Is catching exceptions asynchronous?

  - by Gabriel Šcerbák

  I am asking because if it is not, it can be abused as synchronizations mechanism. I am asking about Java.

  Read the article

• Why are functional languages considered a boon for multi threaded environments?

  - by Billy ONeal

  I hear a lot about functional languages, and how they scale well because there is no state around a function; and therefore that function can be massively parallelized. However, this makes little sense to me because almost all real-world practical programs need/have state to take care of. I also find it interesting that most major scaling libraries, i.e. MapReduce, are typically written in imperative languages like C or C++. I'd like to hear from the functional camp where this hype I'm hearing is coming from....

  Read the article

• optimistic lock-free FIFO queues impl?

  - by uray

  is there any C++ implementation (source codes) of "optmistic approach to lock-free FIFO queues" algorithm?

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• using qsub (sge) with multi-threaded applications

  - by dan12345

  i wanted to submit a multi-threaded job to the cluster network i'm working with - but the man page about qsub is not clear how this is done - By default i guess it just sends it as a normal job regardless of the multi-threading - but this might cause problems, i.e. sending many multi-threaded jobs to the same computer, slowing things down. Does anyone know how to accomplish this? thanks. The batch server system is sge.

  Read the article

• Fixed strptime exception with thread lock, but slows down the program

  - by eWizardII

  I have the following code, which when is running inside of a thread (the full code is here - https://github.com/eWizardII/homobabel/blob/master/lovebird.py) for null in range(0,1): while True: try: with open('C:/Twitter/tweets/user_0_' + str(self.id) + '.json', mode='w') as f: f.write('[') threadLock.acquire() for i, seed in enumerate(Cursor(api.user_timeline,screen_name=self.ip).items(200)): if i>0: f.write(", ") f.write("%s" % (json.dumps(dict(sc=seed.author.statuses_count)))) j = j + 1 threadLock.release() f.write("]") except tweepy.TweepError, e: with open('C:/Twitter/tweets/user_0_' + str(self.id) + '.json', mode='a') as f: f.write("]") print "ERROR on " + str(self.ip) + " Reason: ", e with open('C:/Twitter/errors_0.txt', mode='a') as a_file: new_ii = "ERROR on " + str(self.ip) + " Reason: " + str(e) + "\n" a_file.write(new_ii) break Now without the thread lock I generate the following error: Exception in thread Thread-117: Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\Python27\lib\threading.py", line 530, in __bootstrap_inner self.run() File "C:/Twitter/homobabel/lovebird.py", line 62, in run for i, seed in enumerate(Cursor(api.user_timeline,screen_name=self.ip).items(200)): File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\cursor.py", line 110, in next self.current_page = self.page_iterator.next() File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\cursor.py", line 85, in next items = self.method(page=self.current_page, *self.args, **self.kargs) File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\binder.py", line 196, in _call return method.execute() File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\binder.py", line 182, in execute result = self.api.parser.parse(self, resp.read()) File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\parsers.py", line 75, in parse result = model.parse_list(method.api, json) File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\models.py", line 38, in parse_list results.append(cls.parse(api, obj)) File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\models.py", line 49, in parse user = User.parse(api, v) File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\models.py", line 86, in parse setattr(user, k, parse_datetime(v)) File "build\bdist.win-amd64\egg\tweepy\utils.py", line 17, in parse_datetime date = datetime(*(time.strptime(string, '%a %b %d %H:%M:%S +0000 %Y')[0:6])) File "C:\Python27\lib\_strptime.py", line 454, in _strptime_time return _strptime(data_string, format)[0] File "C:\Python27\lib\_strptime.py", line 300, in _strptime _TimeRE_cache = TimeRE() File "C:\Python27\lib\_strptime.py", line 188, in __init__ self.locale_time = LocaleTime() File "C:\Python27\lib\_strptime.py", line 77, in __init__ raise ValueError("locale changed during initialization") ValueError: locale changed during initialization The problem is with thread lock on, each thread runs itself serially basically, and it takes way to long for each loop to run for there to be any advantage to having a thread anymore. So if there isn't a way to get rid of the thread lock, is there a way to have it run the for loop inside of the try statement faster?

  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 to figure out who owns a worker thread that is still running when my app exits?

  - by Dave

  Not long after upgrading to VS2010, my application won't shut down cleanly. If I close the app and then hit pause in the IDE, I see this: The problem is, there's no context. The call stack just says [External code], which isn't too helpful. Here's what I've done so far to try to narrow down the problem: deleted all extraneous plugins to minimize the number of worker threads launched set breakpoints in my code anywhere I create worker threads (and delegates + BeginInvoke, since I think they are labeled "Worker Thread" in the debugger anyway). None were hit. set IsBackground = true for all threads While I could do the next brute force step, which is to roll my code back to a point where this didn't happen and then look over all of the change logs, this isn't terribly efficient. Can anyone recommend a better way to figure this out, given the notable lack of information presented by the debugger? The only other things I can think of include: read up on WinDbg and try to use it to stop anytime a thread is started. At least, I thought that was possible... :) comment out huge blocks of code until the app closes properly, then start uncommenting until it doesn't. UPDATE Perhaps this information will be of use. I decided to use WinDbg and attach to my application. I then closed it, and switched to thread 0 and dumped the stack contents. Here's what I have: ThreadCount: 6 UnstartedThread: 0 BackgroundThread: 1 PendingThread: 0 DeadThread: 4 Hosted Runtime: no PreEmptive GC Alloc Lock ID OSID ThreadOBJ State GC Context Domain Count APT Exception 0 1 1c70 005a65c8 6020 Enabled 02dac6e0:02dad7f8 005a03c0 0 STA 2 2 1b20 005b1980 b220 Enabled 00000000:00000000 005a03c0 0 MTA (Finalizer) XXXX 3 08504048 19820 Enabled 00000000:00000000 005a03c0 0 Ukn XXXX 4 08504540 19820 Enabled 00000000:00000000 005a03c0 0 Ukn XXXX 5 08516a90 19820 Enabled 00000000:00000000 005a03c0 0 Ukn XXXX 6 08517260 19820 Enabled 00000000:00000000 005a03c0 0 Ukn 0:008> ~0s eax=c0674960 ebx=00000000 ecx=00000000 edx=00000000 esi=0040f320 edi=005a65c8 eip=76c37e47 esp=0040f23c ebp=0040f258 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz na po nc cs=0023 ss=002b ds=002b es=002b fs=0053 gs=002b efl=00000202 USER32!NtUserGetMessage+0x15: 76c37e47 83c404 add esp,4 0:000> !clrstack OS Thread Id: 0x1c70 (0) Child SP IP Call Site 0040f274 76c37e47 [InlinedCallFrame: 0040f274] 0040f270 6baa8976 DomainBoundILStubClass.IL_STUB_PInvoke(System.Windows.Interop.MSG ByRef, System.Runtime.InteropServices.HandleRef, Int32, Int32)*** WARNING: Unable to verify checksum for C:\Windows\assembly\NativeImages_v4.0.30319_32\WindowsBase\d17606e813f01376bd0def23726ecc62\WindowsBase.ni.dll 0040f274 6ba924c5 [InlinedCallFrame: 0040f274] MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.IntGetMessageW(System.Windows.Interop.MSG ByRef, System.Runtime.InteropServices.HandleRef, Int32, Int32) 0040f2c4 6ba924c5 MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.GetMessageW(System.Windows.Interop.MSG ByRef, System.Runtime.InteropServices.HandleRef, Int32, Int32) 0040f2dc 6ba8e5f8 System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.GetMessage(System.Windows.Interop.MSG ByRef, IntPtr, Int32, Int32) 0040f318 6ba8d579 System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrameImpl(System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherFrame) 0040f368 6ba8d2a1 System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrame(System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherFrame) 0040f374 6ba7fba0 System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Run() 0040f380 62e6ccbb System.Windows.Application.RunDispatcher(System.Object)*** WARNING: Unable to verify checksum for C:\Windows\assembly\NativeImages_v4.0.30319_32\PresentationFramewo#\7f91eecda3ff7ce478146b6458580c98\PresentationFramework.ni.dll 0040f38c 62e6c8ff System.Windows.Application.RunInternal(System.Windows.Window) 0040f3b0 62e6c682 System.Windows.Application.Run(System.Windows.Window) 0040f3c0 62e6c30b System.Windows.Application.Run() 0040f3cc 001f00bc MyApplication.App.Main() [C:\code\trunk\MyApplication\obj\Debug\GeneratedInternalTypeHelper.g.cs @ 24] 0040f608 66c421db [GCFrame: 0040f608] EDIT -- not sure if this helps, but the main thread's call stack looks like this: [Managed to Native Transition] > WindowsBase.dll!MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.GetMessageW(ref System.Windows.Interop.MSG msg, System.Runtime.InteropServices.HandleRef hWnd, int uMsgFilterMin, int uMsgFilterMax) + 0x15 bytes WindowsBase.dll!System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.GetMessage(ref System.Windows.Interop.MSG msg, System.IntPtr hwnd, int minMessage, int maxMessage) + 0x48 bytes WindowsBase.dll!System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrameImpl(System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherFrame frame = {System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherFrame}) + 0x85 bytes WindowsBase.dll!System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrame(System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherFrame frame) + 0x49 bytes WindowsBase.dll!System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Run() + 0x4c bytes PresentationFramework.dll!System.Windows.Application.RunDispatcher(object ignore) + 0x17 bytes PresentationFramework.dll!System.Windows.Application.RunInternal(System.Windows.Window window) + 0x6f bytes PresentationFramework.dll!System.Windows.Application.Run(System.Windows.Window window) + 0x26 bytes PresentationFramework.dll!System.Windows.Application.Run() + 0x1b bytes I did a search on it and found some posts related to WPF GUIs hanging, and maybe that'll give me some more clues.

  Read the article

• Issue accessing class variable from thread.

  - by James

  Hello, The code below is meant to take an arraylist of product objects as an input, spun thread for each product(and add the product to the arraylist 'products'), check product image(product.imageURL) availability, remove the products without images(remove the product from the arraylist 'products'), and return an arraylist of products with image available. package com.catgen.thread; import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.Iterator; import java.util.List; import com.catgen.Product; import com.catgen.Utils; public class ProductFilterThread extends Thread{ private Product product; private List<Product> products = new ArrayList<Product>(); public ProductFilterThread(){ } public ProductFilterThread(Product product){ this.product = product; } public synchronized void addProduct(Product product){ System.out.println("Before add: "+getProducts().size()); getProducts().add(product); System.out.println("After add: "+getProducts().size()); } public synchronized void removeProduct(Product product){ System.out.println("Before rem: "+getProducts().size()); getProducts().remove(product); System.out.println("After rem: "+getProducts().size()); } public synchronized List<Product> getProducts(){ return this.products; } public synchronized void setProducts(List<Product> products){ this.products = products; } public void run(){ boolean imageExists = Utils.fileExists(this.product.ImageURL); if(!imageExists){ System.out.println(this.product.ImageURL); removeProduct(this.product); } } public List<Product> getProductsWithImageOnly(List<Product> products){ ProductFilterThread pft = null; try{ List<ProductFilterThread> threads = new ArrayList<ProductFilterThread>(); for(Product product: products){ pft = new ProductFilterThread(product); addProduct(product); pft.start(); threads.add(pft); } Iterator<ProductFilterThread> threadsIter = threads.iterator(); while(threadsIter.hasNext()){ ProductFilterThread thread = threadsIter.next(); thread.join(); } }catch(Exception e){ e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println("Total returned products = "+getProducts().size()); return getProducts(); } } Calling statement: displayProducts = new ProductFilterThread().getProductsWithImageOnly(displayProducts); Here, when addProduct(product) is called from within getProductsWithImageOnly(), getProducts() returns the list of products, but that's not the case(no products are returned) when the method removeProduct() is called by a thread, because of which the products without images are never removed. As a result, all the products are returned by the module whether or not the contained products have images. What can be the problem here? Thanks in advance. James.

  Read the article

• Trying to run multiple HTTP requests in parallel, but being limited by Windows (registry)

  - by Nailuj

  I'm developing an application (winforms C# .NET 4.0) where I access a lookup functionality from a 3rd party through a simple HTTP request. I call an url with a parameter, and in return I get a small string with the result of the lookup. Simple enough. The challenge is however, that I have to do lots of these lookups (a couple of thousands), and I would like to limit the time needed. Therefore I would like to run requests in parallel (say 10-20). I use a ThreadPool to do this, and the short version of my code looks like this: public void startAsyncLookup(Action<LookupResult> returnLookupResult) { this.returnLookupResult = returnLookupResult; foreach (string number in numbersToLookup) { ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(lookupNumber, number); } } public void lookupNumber(Object threadContext) { string numberToLookup = (string)threadContext; string url = @"http://some.url.com/?number=" + numberToLookup; WebClient webClient = new WebClient(); Stream responseData = webClient.OpenRead(url); LookupResult lookupResult = parseLookupResult(responseData); returnLookupResult(lookupResult); } I fill up numbersToLookup (a List<String>) from another place, call startAsyncLookup and provide it with a call-back function returnLookupResult to return each result. This works, but I found that I'm not getting the throughput I want. Initially I thought it might be the 3rd party having a poor system on their end, but I excluded this by trying to run the same code from two different machines at the same time. Each of the two took as long as one did alone, so I could rule out that one. A colleague then tipped me that this might be a limitation in Windows. I googled a bit, and found amongst others this post saying that by default Windows limits the number of simultaneous request to the same web server to 4 for HTTP 1.0 and to 2 for HTTP 1.1 (for HTTP 1.1 this is actually according to the specification (RFC2068)). The same post referred to above also provided a way to increase these limits. By adding two registry values to [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings] (MaxConnectionsPerServer and MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server), I could control this myself. So, I tried this (sat both to 20), restarted my computer, and tried to run my program again. Sadly though, it didn't seem to help any. I also kept an eye on the Resource Monitor (see screen shot) while running my batch lookup, and I noticed that my application (the one with the title blacked out) still only was using two TCP connections. So, the question is, why isn't this working? Is the post I linked to using the wrong registry values? Is this perhaps not possible to "hack" in Windows any longer (I'm on Windows 7)? Any ideas would be highly appreciated :) And just in case anyone should wonder, I have also tried with different settings for MaxThreads on ThreadPool (everyting from 10 to 100), and this didn't seem to affect my throughput at all, so the problem shouldn't be there either.

  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 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

• C#, Can I check on a lock without trying to acquire it?

  - by Biff MaGriff

  Hello, I have a lock in my c# web app that prevents users from running the update script once it has started. I was thinking I would put a notification in my master page to let the user know that the data isn't all there yet. Currently I do my locking like so. protected void butRefreshData_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(UpdateDatabase)); t.Start(this); //sleep for a bit to ensure that javascript has a chance to get rendered Thread.Sleep(100); } public static void UpdateDatabase(object con) { if (Monitor.TryEnter(myLock)) { Updater.RepopulateDatabase(); Monitor.Exit(myLock); } else { Common.RegisterStartupScript(con, AlreadyLockedJavaScript); } } And I do not want to do if(Monitor.TryEnter(myLock)) Monitor.Exit(myLock); else //show processing labal As I imagine there is a slight possibility that it might display the notification when it isn't actually running. Is there an alternative I can use? Edit: Hi Everyone, thanks a lot for your suggestions! Unfortunately I couldn't quite get them to work... However I combined the ideas on 2 answers and came up with my own solution.

  Read the article

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