Search Results

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

Page 39/66 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • Boost::Thread or fork()

    - by osmano807
    I'm testing boost::thread on a system. It happens that I needed to act as a fork(), because one thread modifies the other variables, even member variables of class I do the project using fork() or is there some alternative still using boost::thread Basically I run this program in Linux and maybe FreeBSD

    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 handle all unhandled exceptions when using Task Parallel Library?

    - by Buu Nguyen
    I'm using the TPL (Task Parallel Library) in .NET 4.0. I want to be able to centralize the handling logic of all unhandled exceptions by using the Thread.GetDomain().UnhandledException event. However, in my application, the event is never fired for threads started with TPL code, e.g. Task.Factory.StartNew(...). The event is indeed fired if I use something like new Thread(threadStart).Start(). This MSDN article suggests to use Task#Wait() to catch the AggregateException when working with TPL, but that is not I want because it is not "centralized" enough a mechanism. Does anyone experience same problem at all or is it just me? Do you have any solution for this?

    Read the article

  • Java Executor: Small tasks or big ones?

    - by Arash Shahkar
    Consider one big task which could be broken into hundreds of small, independently-runnable tasks. To be more specific, each small task is to send a light network request and decide upon the answer received from the server. These small tasks are not expected to take longer than a second, and involve a few servers in total. I have in mind two approaches to implement this using the Executor framework, and I want to know which one's better and why. Create a few, say 5 to 10 tasks each involving doing a bunch of send and receives. Create a single task (Callable or Runnable) for each send & receive and schedule all of them (hundreds) to be run by the executor. I'm sorry if my question shows that I'm lazy to test these and see for myself what's better (at least performance-wise). My question, while looking after an answer to this specific case, has a more general aspect. In situations like these when you want to use an executor to do all the scheduling and other stuff, is it better to create lots of small tasks or to group those into a less number of bigger tasks?

    Read the article

  • Catching the redirected address from NSURLConnection

    - by Vic
    I'm working on a software which follows the HTTP redirection which is dynamically calculated by the server depending on a pparameter. I don't want to show the primary server in Mobile Safari but rather the redirected address only. The following code workks: request = [NSMutableURLRequest requestWithURL:originalUrl cachePolicy:NSURLRequestReloadIgnoringCacheData timeoutInterval:10]; [NSURLConnection sendSynchronousRequest:request returningResponse:&response error:&error]; // Extract the redirected URL target = [response URL]; The problem is that the server requires several seconds to answer. The sendSynchronousRequest blocks the app for this time completely which is messy, I can't even display the "Busy" animation. Does anyone know how I can retrieve the redirected address asynchronously without safari appearance in the meanwhile with the redirecting server URL or display some sort of the "Be patient" animation during the sendSynchronousRequest? What disadvantages would have the passing of sendSynchronousRequest in another thread?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • stop thread that does not get interrupted

    - by prmatta
    I have a thread that sits and reads objects off of an ObjectInputStream: public void run() { try { ois = new ObjectInputStream(clientSocket.getInputStream()); Object o; while ((o = ois.readObject()) != null) { //do something with object } } catch (Exception ex) { //Log exception } } readObject does not throw InterruptedException and as far as I can tell, no exception is thrown when this thread is interrupted. How do I stop this thread?

    Read the article

  • How to improve multi-threaded access to Cache (custom implementation)

    - by Andy
    I have a custom Cache implementation, which allows to cache TCacheable<TKey> descendants using LRU (Least Recently Used) cache replacement algorithm. Every time an element is accessed, it is bubbled up to the top of the LRU queue using the following synchronized function: // a single instance is created to handle all TCacheable<T> elements public class Cache() { private object syncQueue = new object(); private void topQueue(TCacheable<T> el) { lock (syncQueue) if (newest != el) { if (el.elder != null) el.elder.newer = el.newer; if (el.newer != null) el.newer.elder = el.elder; if (oldest == el) oldest = el.newer; if (oldest == null) oldest = el; if (newest != null) newest.newer = el; el.newer = null; el.elder = newest; newest = el; } } } The bottleneck in this function is the lock() operator, which limits cache access to just one thread at a time. Question: Is it possible to get rid of lock(syncQueue) in this function while still preserving the queue integrity?

    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

  • Is memory allocation in linux non-blocking?

    - by Mark
    I am curious to know if the allocating memory using a default new operator is a non-blocking operation. e.g. struct Node { int a,b; }; ... Node foo = new Node(); If multiple threads tried to create a new Node and if one of them was suspended by the OS in the middle of allocation, would it block other threads from making progress? The reason why I ask is because I had a concurrent data structure that created new nodes. I then modified the algorithm to recycle the nodes. The throughput performance of the two algorithms was virtually identical on a 24 core machine. However, I then created an interference program that ran on all the system cores in order to create as much OS pre-emption as possible. The throughput performance of the algorithm that created new nodes decreased by a factor of 5 relative the the algorithm that recycled nodes. I'm curious to know why this would occur. Thanks. *Edit : pointing me to the code for the c++ memory allocator for linux would be helpful as well. I tried looking before posting this question, but had trouble finding it.

    Read the article

  • Wait until user press enter in textbox in another form and return value

    - by ekapek
    Hello, I am new to C# and I'm trying to do sth like this: myList = list of 1000+ string values; 1.StartNewThreads(50); //50 is the numbers of new threads 2.DoSth1(next value from myList); 3.DoSth2(); 4. var value = { ShowNewImageForm(); //show only if not another ImageForm is displayed if another is show - wait WaitUntilUserPressEnterInTextBox(); ReturnValueFormTextbox(); } 5.DoSth3(); 6.StartNewThread(); For now I have: foreach(String s in myList ) { DoSth1(s); DoSth2(); DoSth3(); } And now I'm looking for ideas to points 1,3,6 Can You suggest me how to resolve this? How to start 50 threads How to get value from textbox in another form when user press enter

    Read the article

  • how to write silverlight threading function in another file or project

    - by Piyush
    I am using three tier architecture.I have SilverlightUI and UIController two projects.SilverlightUI contains only UI pages and controls while UIController contains all proxies of WCF services. Now I have created threads to update my controls dynamically and to do processing parallel.AS the requirement I want to define all functionality of threads in UIController projects.What should I do? Currenty what I am doing - private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { StartThreads(); } private void StartThreads() { private Thread _thread1; _thread1 = new Thread(DoThread1); _thread1.Start(); } public static void DoThread1() { _data1.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate() { _data1.Text = _count1.ToString(); }); System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000); } I Want to write DoThread1() method in UIController project and call that function from here button_click()

    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

  • how to share a variable between two threads

    - by prmatta
    I just inherited some code, two threads within this code need to perform a system task. One thread should do the system task before the other thread. They should not be performing the system task together. The two threads do not have references to each other. Now, I know I can use some sort of a semaphore to achieve this. But my question is what is the right way to get both threads to access this semaphore. I could create a static variable/method a new class : public class SharedSemaphore { private static Semaphore s = new Semaphore (1, true); public static void performSystemTask () { s.acquire(); } public static void donePerformingSystemTask() { s.release(); } } This would work (right?) but this doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Because, the threads now have access to a semaphore, without ever having a reference to it. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a good programming practice. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • Delegates And Cross Thread Exception

    - by Neo
    Whenever i am updating UI in windows form using delegate it gives me cross thread exception why it is happening like this? is there new thread started for each delegate call ? void Port_DataReceived(object sender, SerialDataReceivedEventArgs e) { //this call delegate to display data clsConnect(statusMsg); } protected void displayResponse(string resp) { //here cross thread exception occur if directly set to lblMsgResp.Text="Test"; if (lblMsgResp.InvokeRequired) { lblMsgResp.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { lblMsgResp.Text = resp; })); } }

    Read the article

  • Python : How to close a UDP socket while is waiting for data in recv ?

    - by alexroat
    Hello, let's consider this code in python: import socket import threading import sys import select class UDPServer: def __init__(self): self.s=None self.t=None def start(self,port=8888): if not self.s: self.s=socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM) self.s.bind(("",port)) self.t=threading.Thread(target=self.run) self.t.start() def stop(self): if self.s: self.s.close() self.t.join() self.t=None def run(self): while True: try: #receive data data,addr=self.s.recvfrom(1024) self.onPacket(addr,data) except: break self.s=None def onPacket(self,addr,data): print addr,data us=UDPServer() while True: sys.stdout.write("UDP server> ") cmd=sys.stdin.readline() if cmd=="start\n": print "starting server..." us.start(8888) print "done" elif cmd=="stop\n": print "stopping server..." us.stop() print "done" elif cmd=="quit\n": print "Quitting ..." us.stop() break; print "bye bye" It runs an interactive shell with which I can start and stop an UDP server. The server is implemented through a class which launches a thread in which there's a infinite loop of recv/*onPacket* callback inside a try/except block which should detect the error and the exits from the loop. What I expect is that when I type "stop" on the shell the socket is closed and an exception is raised by the recvfrom function because of the invalidation of the file descriptor. Instead, it seems that recvfrom still to block the thread waiting for data even after the close call. Why this strange behavior ? I've always used this patter to implements an UDP server in C++ and JAVA and it always worked. I've tried also with a "select" passing a list with the socket to the xread argument, in order to get an event of file descriptor disruption from select instead that from recvfrom, but select seems to be "insensible" to the close too. I need to have a unique code which maintain the same behavior on Linux and Windows with python 2.5 - 2.6. Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >