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 >

  • Windows Service suddenly doing nothing

    - by TB
    Hi, My windows service is using a Thread (not a timer) which is always looping and sleeps for 1 second every loop using : evet.WaitOne(interval); When I start the service it works fine and I can see in the task manager that it is running, consuming and releasing memory, consuming processor ... etc that is all normal, but after a while (random amount of time) the service simply stops!! it is still there in the task manager but it is not consuming any processor work now and its consumption to the memory is not changing. it simply (died but still there in the task manager like a Zombie). I know that many exceptions might have happened during running the service (it is really doing many things) but all those exceptions are handled in Try catch blocks, so why is my "always looping" thread stops ??? This thread also logs every time he loops, when he is freezig in this way he is not logging anything (of course)

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Log RuntimeException thrown from thread created by Spring via the @Async annotation

    - by Eugen
    I'm having some difficulty logging RuntimeException from a thread. My system is: Java 7 (b118), Spring 3.0.5. The threads are not created by hand, but via Spring's @Async annotation, which creates it's own executor behind the scenes, so I don't really have the option of overriding any methods of the thread, FutureTask or anything low level. So my question is if Spring has any support or if there are any best practices for handling (logging) these type of exceptions? Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • .NET threading: how can I capture an abort on an unstarted thread?

    - by Groxx
    I have a chunk of threads I wish to run in order, on an ASP site running .NET 2.0 with Visual Studio 2008 (no idea how much all that matters, but there it is), and they may have aborted-clean-up code which should be run regardless of how far through their task they are. So I make a thread like this: Thread t = new Thread(delegate() { try { /* do things */ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("try"); } catch (ThreadAbortException) { /* cleanup */ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("catch"); } }); Now, if I wish to abort the set of threads part way through, the cleanup may still be desirable later on down the line. Looking through MSDN implies you can .Abort() a thread that has not started, and then .Start() it, at which point it will receive the exception and perform normally. Or you can .Join() the aborted thread to wait for it to finish aborting. Presumably you can combine them. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ty8d3wta(v=VS.80).aspx To wait until a thread has aborted, you can call the Join method on the thread after calling the Abort method, but there is no guarantee the wait will end. If Abort is called on a thread that has not been started, the thread will abort when Start is called. If Abort is called on a thread that is blocked or is sleeping, the thread is interrupted and then aborted. Now, when I debug and step through this code: t.Abort(); // ThreadState == Unstarted | AbortRequested t.Start(); // throws ThreadStartException: "Thread failed to start." // so I comment it out, and t.Join(); // throws ThreadStateException: "Thread has not been started." At no point do I see any output, nor do any breakpoints on either the try or catch block get reached. Oddly, ThreadStartException is not listed as a possible throw of .Start(), from here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a9fyxz7d(v=VS.80).aspx (or any other version) I understand this could be avoided by having a start parameter, which states if the thread should jump to cleanup code, and foregoing the Abort call (which is probably what I'll do). And I could .Start() the thread, and then .Abort() it. But as an indeterminate amount of time may pass between .Start and .Abort, I'm considering it unreliable, and the documentation seems to say my original method should work. Am I missing something? Is the documentation wrong? edit: ow. And you can't call .Start(param) on a non-parameterized Thread(Start). Is there a way to find out if a thread is parameterized or not, aside from trial and error? I see a private m_Delegate, but nothing public...

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Java: How to test methods that call System.exit()?

    - by Chris Conway
    I've got a few methods that should call System.exit() on certain inputs. Unfortunately, testing these cases causes JUnit to terminate! Putting the method calls in a new Thread doesn't seem to help, since System.exit() terminates the JVM, not just the current thread. Are there any common patterns for dealing with this? For example, can I subsitute a stub for System.exit()? [EDIT] The class in question is actually a command-line tool which I'm attempting to test inside JUnit. Maybe JUnit is simply not the right tool for the job? Suggestions for complementary regression testing tools are welcome (preferably something that integrates well with JUnit and EclEmma).

    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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Threading calls to web service in a web service - (.net 2.0)

    - by Ryan Ternier
    Got a question regarding best practices for doing parallel web service calls, in a web service. Our portal will get a message, split that message into 2 messages, and then do 2 calls to our broker. These need to be on separate threads to lower the timeout. One solution is to do something similar to (pseudo code): XmlNode DNode = GetaGetDemoNodeSomehow(); XmlNode ENode = GetAGetElNodeSomehow(); XmlNode elResponse; XmlNode demResponse; Thread dThread = new Thread(delegate { //Web Service Call GetDemographics d = new GetDemographics(); demResponse = d.HIALRequest(DNode); }); Thread eThread = new Thread(delegate { //Web Service Call GetEligibility ge = new GetEligibility(); elResponse = ge.HIALRequest(ENode); }); dThread.Start(); eThread.Start(); dThread.Join(); eThread.Join(); //combine the resulting XML and return it. //Maybe throw a bit of logging in to make architecture happy Another option we thought of is to create a worker class, and pass it the service information and have it execute. This would allow us to have a bit more control over what is going on, but could add additional overhead. Another option brought up would be 2 asynchronous calls and manage the returns through a loop. When the calls are completed (success or error) the loop picks it up and ends. The portal service will be called about 50,000 times a day. I don't want to gold plate this sucker. I'm looking for something light weight. The services that are being called on the broker do have time out limits set, and are already heavily logged and audited, so I'm not worried on that part. This is .NET 2.0 , and as much as I would love to upgrade I can't right now. So please leave all the goodies of 2.0 out please.

    Read the article

  • Pass a Message From Thread to Update UI

    - by Jay Dee
    Ive created a new thread for a file browser. The thread reads the contents of a directory. What I want to do is update the UI thread to draw a graphical representation of the files and folders. I know I can't update the UI from within a new thread so what I want to do is: whilst the file scanning thread iterates through a directories files and folders pass a file path string back to the UI thread. The handler in the UI thread then draws the graphical representation of the file passed back. public class New_Project extends Activity implements Runnable { private Handler handler = new Handler() { @Override public void handleMessage(Message msg) { Log.d("New Thread","Proccess Complete."); Intent intent = new Intent(); setResult(RESULT_OK, intent); finish(); } }; public void getFiles(){ //if (!XMLEFunctions.canReadExternal(this)) return; pd = ProgressDialog.show(this, "Reading Directory.", "Please Wait...", true, false); Log.d("New Thread","Called"); Thread thread = new Thread(this); thread.start(); } public void run() { Log.d("New Thread","Reading Files"); getFiles(); handler.sendEmptyMessage(0); } public void getFiles() { for (int i=0;i<=allFiles.length-1;i++){ //I WANT TO PASS THE FILE PATH BACK TU A HANDLER IN THE UI //SO IT CAN BE DRAWN. **passFilePathBackToBeDrawn(allFiles[i].toString());** } } }

    Read the article

  • How to use locks/synchronization here

    - by MasterGberry
    I have this code block here and i need to make sure the rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch is synchronized between threads properly. I was going to use synchronize but that i don't think will work here because of the variable being used in the if statement. I read online about final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(); but I am a bit confused on how to use it in this case properly with the try/finally block. Can I get a quick example? Thanks // start synchronization if (rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch.get(rankedType).size() >= 2) { Player player1 = rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch.get(rankedType).remove(); Player player2 = rankedPlayersWaitingForMatch.get(rankedType).remove(); // end synchronization // ... I don't want this all to be synchronized, just after the first 2 remove() } else { // end synchronization // ... }

    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

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