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 >

  • What is the optimal number of threads for performing IO operations in java?

    - by marc
    In Goetz's "Java Concurrency in Practice", in a footnote on page 101, he writes "For computational problems like this that do not I/O and access no shared data, Ncpu or Ncpu+1 threads yield optimal throughput; more threads do not help, and may in fact degrade performance..." My question is, when performing I/O operations such as file writing, file reading, file deleting, etc, are there guidelines for the number of threads to use to achieve maximum performance? I understand this will be just a guide number, since disk speeds and a host of other factors play into this. Still, I'm wondering: can 20 threads write 1000 separate files to disk faster than 4 threads can on a 4-cpu machine?

    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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • .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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Capturing stdout from an imported module in wxpython and sending it to a textctrl, without blocking the GUI

    - by splafe
    There are alot of very similar questions to this but I can't find one that applies specifically to what I'm trying to do. I have a simulation (written in SimPy) that I'm writing a GUI for, the main output of the simulation is text - to the console from 'print' statements. Now, I thought the simplest way would be to create a seperate module GUI.py, and import my simulation program into it: import osi_model I want all the print statements to be captured by the GUI and appear inside a Textctrl, which there's countless examples of on here, along these lines: class MyFrame(wx.Frame): def __init__(self, *args, **kwds): <general frame initialisation stuff..> redir=RedirectText(self.txtCtrl_1) sys.stdout=redir class RedirectText: def __init__(self,aWxTextCtrl): self.out=aWxTextCtrl def write(self,string): self.out.WriteText(string) I am also starting my simulation from a 'Go' button: def go_btn_click(self, event): print 'GO' self.RT = threading.Thread(target=osi_model.RunThis()) self.RT.start() This all works fine, and the output from the simulation module is captured by the TextCtrl, except the GUI locks up and becomes unresponsive - I still need it to be accessible (at the very minimum to have a 'Stop' button). I'm not sure if this is a botched attempt at creating a new thread that I've done here, but I assume a new thread will be needed at some stage in this process. People suggest using wx.CallAfter, but I'm not sure how to go about this considering the imported module doesn't know about wx, and also I can't realistically go through the entire simulation architecture and change all the print statements to wx.CallAfter, and any attempt to capture the shell from inside the imported simulation program leads to the program crashing. Does anybody have any ideas about how I can best achieve this? So all I really need is for all console text to be captured by a TextCtrl while the GUI remains responsive, and all text is solely coming from an imported module. (Also, secondary question regarding a Stop button - is it bad form to just kill the simulation thread?). Thanks, Duncan

    Read the article

  • Threads to make video out of images

    - by masood
    updates: I think/ suspect the imageIO is not thread safe. shared by all threads. the read() call might use resources that are also shared. Thus it will give the performance of a single thread no matter how many threads used. ? if its correct . what is the solution (in practical code) Single request and response model at one time do not utilizes full network/internet bandwidth, thus resulting in low performance. (benchmark is of half speed utilization or even lower) This is to make a video out of an IP cam that gives a new image on each request. http://149.5.43.10:8001/snapshot.jpg It makes a delay of 3 - 8 seconds no matter what I do. Changed thread no. and thread time intervals, debugged the code by System.out.println statements to see if threads work. All seems normal. Any help? Please show some practical code. You may modify mine. This code works (javascript) with much smoother frame rate and max bandwidth usage. but the later code (java) dont. same 3 to 8 seconds gap. <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <script type="text/javascript"> (function(){ var img="/*url*/"; var interval=50; var pointer=0; function showImg(image,idx) { if(idx<=pointer) return; document.body.replaceChild(image,document.getElementsByTagName("img")[0]); pointer=idx; preload(); } function preload() { var cache=null,idx=0;; for(var i=0;i<5;i++) { idx=Date.now()+interval*(i+1); cache=new Image(); cache.onload=(function(ele,idx){return function(){showImg(ele,idx);};})(cache,idx); cache.src=img+"?"+idx; } } window.onload=function(){ document.getElementsByTagName("img")[0].onload=preload; document.getElementsByTagName("img")[0].src="/*initial url*/"; }; })(); </script> </head> <body> <img /> </body> </html> and of java (with problem) : package camba; import java.applet.Applet; import java.awt.Button; import java.awt.Graphics; import java.awt.Image; import java.awt.Label; import java.awt.Panel; import java.awt.TextField; import java.awt.event.ActionEvent; import java.awt.event.ActionListener; import java.net.URL; import java.security.Timestamp; import java.util.Date; import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit; import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean; import javax.imageio.ImageIO; public class Camba extends Applet implements ActionListener{ Image img; TextField textField; Label label; Button start,stop; boolean terminate = false; long viewTime; public void init(){ label = new Label("please enter camera URL "); add(label); textField = new TextField(30); add(textField); start = new Button("Start"); add(start); start.addActionListener(this); stop = new Button("Stop"); add(stop); stop.addActionListener(this); } public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e){ Button source = (Button)e.getSource(); if(source.getLabel() == "Start"){ for (int i = 0; i < 7; i++) { myThread(50*i); } System.out.println("start..."); } if(source.getLabel() == "Stop"){ terminate = true; System.out.println("stop..."); } } public void paint(Graphics g) { update(g); } public void update(Graphics g){ try{ viewTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); g.drawImage(img, 100, 100, this); } catch(Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } public void myThread(final int sleepTime){ new Thread(new Runnable() { public void run() { while(!terminate){ try { TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.sleep(sleepTime); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { ex.printStackTrace(); } long requestTime= 0; Image tempImage = null; try { URL pic = null; requestTime= System.currentTimeMillis(); pic = new URL(getDocumentBase(), textField.getText()); tempImage = ImageIO.read(pic); } catch(Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } if(requestTime >= /*last view time*/viewTime){ img = tempImage; Camba.this.repaint(); } } }}).start(); System.out.println("thread started..."); } }

    Read the article

  • Have threads run indefinitely in a java application

    - by TP
    I am trying to program a game in which I have a Table class and each person sitting at the table is a separate thread. The game involves the people passing tokens around and then stopping when the party chime sounds. how do i program the run() method so that once I start the person threads, they do not die and are alive until the end of the game One solution that I tried was having a while (true) {} loop in the run() method but that increases my CPU utilization to around 60-70 percent. Is there a better method?

    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

  • 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

  • Unexpected cross threading issue

    - by haughtonomous
    I'm trying to do something very simple in principal, but I keep getting a cross-threading exception which has me stumped because I'm not setting out to use multiple threads. I have a Windows Forms application. It launches another Windows Forms application (using the System.Diagnostics.Process class) , and catches the Exited event when that application is closed. My application event handler then tries to copy text from the clipboard to a control on the current displayed form. At this point a Cross-threading exception is thrown. I assume that the problem is that the event from the closing application is in another thread (I'm outside my comfort zone here, so bear with me), so the question boils down to "How do I prevent this exception?" I'm somewhat constrained into having to copy from the clipboard, but I could launch the other application a different way if that would solve the problem.

    Read the article

  • Task.wait not working as I imagined

    - by user2357446
    I am trying to download a file, wait for the file to finish downloading, and then read the file afterwards. I have the following methods to do this: private async Task startDownload(string link, string savePath) { WebClient client = new WebClient(); client.DownloadProgressChanged += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(client_DownloadProgressChanged); client.DownloadFileCompleted += new AsyncCompletedEventHandler(client_DownloadFileCompleted); await client.DownloadFileTaskAsync(new Uri(link), savePath); } private void checkUpdateButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => startDownload(versionLink, versionSaveTo)); task.Wait(); if (task.IsCompleted) { checkVersion(); } } The checkVersion() method reads the file that was downloaded. This is throwing an IOException saying that the file is in use by something else and cannot be read. I thought that having task.Wait would prevent the rest of the method from executing until the task was finished?

    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

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