Search Results

Search found 8588 results on 344 pages for 'thread abort'.

Page 40/344 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

• WPF update binding in a background thread

  - by Mark

  I have a control that has its data bound to a standard ObservableCollection, and I have a background task that calls a service to get more data. I want to, then, update my backing data behind my control, while displaying a "please wait" dialog, but when I add the new items to the collection, the UI thread locks up while it re-binds and updates my controls. Can I get around this so that my animations and stuff keep running on my "please wait" dialog? Or at least give the "appearance" to the user that its not locked up?

  Read the article

• Is there a chance that sending an email via a thread could ever fail to complete?

  - by Benjamin Dell

  I have a project where I send a couple of emails via a seperet thread, to speed up the process for the end-user. It works successfully, but i was just wondering whether there were any potfalls that i might not have considered? My greatest fear is that the user clicks a button, it says that the message has been sent (as it will have been sent to the thread for sending) but for some reason the thread might fail to send it. Are there any situations where a thread could be aborted prematurely? Please note, that i am not talking about network outages or obvious issues with an email recipient not existing. For simplicites sake please assume that the connect is up, the mail server alive and the recipient valid. Is it possible, for example, for the thread to abort prematurely if the user kills the browser before the thread has completed? This might be a silly question, but i just wanted to make sure i knew the full ramifications of using a thread in this manner. Thanks, in advance, for your help.

  Read the article

• C++ threaded class design from non-threaded class

  - by macs

  I'm working on a library doing audio encoding/decoding. The encoder shall be able to use multiple cores (i.e. multiple threads, using boost library), if available. What i have right now is a class that performs all encoding-relevant operations. The next step i want to take is to make that class threaded. So i'm wondering how to do this. I thought about writing a thread-class, creating n threads for n cores and then calling the encoder with the appropriate arguments. But maybe this is an overkill and there is no need for another class, so i'm going to make use of the "user interface" for thread-creation. I hope there are any suggestions.

  Read the article

• Measuring CPU time per-thread on Windows

  - by Eli Courtwright

  I'm developing a long-running multi-threaded Python application for Windows, and I want the process to know the CPU time that each of its threads has taken. I can get the overall times for the entire process with os.times() but I need to know the per-thread times. I know that there are external tools such as the Sysinternals Process Explorer, but my program itself needs to have this information. If I were on Linux, I look in the /proc filesystem, as described here. If I were writing C code, I'd use the GetThreadTimes call, as described here. So how can I accomplish this on Windows using Python?

  Read the article

• Thread used for ServiceConnection callback (Android)

  - by Jannick

  Hi I'm developing an activity that binds to a local service (in onCreate of the activity): bindService(new Intent(this, CommandService.class), svcConn, BIND_AUTO_CREATE); I would like to be able to call methods through the IBinder in my lifecycle methods, but can not be sure that onServiceConnected have been called prior to these. I'm thinking of handling this by adding a queue of sorts in the ServiceConnection implementation, so that the method calls (Command pattern) will be executed once the connection is established. My questions are then: Is this stupid, any better ways? :) Are there any specification for which thread will be used to execute the ServiceConnection callbacks? More to the point, do I need to worry about synchronizing a queue datastructure? Edit - something like: public void onServiceConnected(ComponentName name, IBinder service) { dispatchService = (DispatchAsync)service; for(ExecutionTask task : queue){ dispatchService.execute(task.getCommand(), task); } }

  Read the article

• Using thread in aspx-page making a webrequest

  - by Mike Ribeiro

  Hi, I kind of new to the hole threading stuff so bare with me here.. I have a aspx-page that takes some input and makes a reqest: HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(string.Format("{0}?{1}", strPostPath, strPostData)); request.Method = "GET"; request.Timeout = 5000; // set 5 sec. timeout request.ProtocolVersion = HttpVersion.Version11; try { HttpWebResponse response = (HttpWebResponse)request.GetResponse(); /do some with response } catch (WebException exce) { //Log some stuff } The thing is that this function is used ALOT. Is there any advantage to make every request in a separate thread and exactly how would that look like? Thx!

  Read the article

• Efficient implementation of threads in the given scenario

  - by shadeMe

  I've got a winforms application that is set up in the following manner: 2 buttons, a textbox, a collection K, function X and another function, Y. Function X parses a large database and enumerates some of its data in the global collection. Button 1 calls function X. Function Y walks through the above collection and prints out the data in the textbox. Button 2 calls function Y. I'd like to call function X through a worker thread in such a way that: The form remains responsive to user input. This comes intrinsically from the use of a separate thread. There is never more than a single instance of function X running at any point in time. K can be accessed by both functions at all times. What would be the most efficient implementation of the above environment ?

  Read the article

• java thread - run() and start() methods

  - by JavaUser

  Please explain the output of the below code: If I call th1.run() ,the output is EXTENDS RUN RUNNABLE RUN If I call th1.start() , the output is : RUNNABLE RUN EXTENDS RUN Why this inconsistency . Please explain. class ThreadExample extends Thread{ public void run(){ System.out.println("EXTENDS RUN"); } } class ThreadExampleRunnable implements Runnable { public void run(){ System.out.println("RUNNABLE RUN "); } } class ThreadExampleMain{ public static void main(String[] args){ ThreadExample th1 = new ThreadExample(); //th1.start(); th1.run(); ThreadExampleRunnable th2 = new ThreadExampleRunnable(); th2.run(); } }

  Read the article

• Force redraw before long running operations

  - by Joshua

  When you have a button, and do something like: Private Function Button_OnClick Button.Enabled = False [LONG OPERATION] End Function Then the button will not be grayed, because the long operation prevents the UI thread from repainting the control. I know the right design is to start a background thread / dispatcher, but sometimes that's too much hassle for a simple operation. So how do I force the button to redraw in disabled state? I tried .UpdateLayout() on the Button, but it didn't have any effects. I also tried System.Windows.Forms.DoEvents() which normally works when using WinForms, but it also had no effect.

  Read the article

• Where Does A UIAlertView Live While Not Dismissed

  - by Jim Bonner

  Does anyone know in whose subview an active UIAlertView is located or how to find the thread in which it is running?

  Read the article

• How can you set a time limit for a PowerShell script to run for?

  - by calrain

  I want to set a time limit on a PowerShell (v2) script so it forcibly exits after that time limit has expired. I see in PHP they have commands like set_time_limit and max_execution_time where you can limit how long the script and even a function can execute for. With my script, a do/while loop that is looking at the time isn't appropriate as I am calling an external code library that can just hang for a long time. I want to limit a block of code and only allow it to run for x seconds, after which I will terminate that code block and return a response to the user that the script timed out. I have looked at background jobs but they operate in a different thread so won't have kill rights over the parent thread. Has anyone dealt with this or have a solution? Thanks!

  Read the article

• ASP.NET Thread Safety in aspx.cs code behind file

  - by Tim Michalski

  I am thinking of adding a DataContext as a member variable to my aspx.cs code-behind class for executing LinqToSql queries. Is this thread safe? I am not sure if a new instance of this code-behind class is created for each HTTP request, or if the instance is shared amongst all request threads? My fear is that I will get 10 simultaneous concurrent http requests that will be using the same database session. public partial class MyPage : System.Web.UI.Page { private DataContext myDB = new DataContext(); protected void MyAction_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { myDB.DoWork(); } }

  Read the article

• How to end a thread in java?

  - by beagleguy

  hi all, I have 2 pools of threads ioThreads = (ThreadPoolExecutor)Executors.newCachedThreadPool(); cpuThreads = (ThreadPoolExecutor)Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numCpus); I have a simple web crawler that I want to create an iothread, pass it a url, it will then fetch the url and pass the contents over to a cpuThread to be processed and the ioThread will then fetch another url, etc... At some point the IO thread will not have any new pages to crawl and I want to update my database that this session is complete. How can I best tell when the threads are all done processing and the program can be ended?

  Read the article

• SslStream.ReadByte() blocks thread?

  - by alex

  I'm trying to write an Imap4 client. For that I use a SslStream to Connect to the Server. Everything's fine until I send the "Login" command. When I try to get an Answer to it, SslStream.ReadByte() block the thread. The result is that my programm crashes always. Whats happening here?? Code: if (ssl) { s = stream; } int cc = 0; MessageBox.Show("entered"); while (true) { int xs = s.ReadByte(); MessageBox.Show(xs.ToString()); if (xs > 0) { buf.Add((byte)xs); cc++; if (xs == '\n') { break; } if (cc > 10) MessageBox.Show(en.GetString(buf.ToArray())); } else { break; } } MessageBox.Show("left");

  Read the article

• ThreadStateException when using QueueUserWorkItem in a Timer

  - by Tim

  Hi all, I have a ThreadStateException in my winforms application. Step to reproduce : Create simple winforms app Add a button In click event, do : timer1.Interval = 1000; timer1.Tick += timer1_Tick; timer1.Start(); void timer1_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e) { ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate { StringCollection paths = new StringCollection { @"c:\my.txt", @"c:\my.png" }; Clipboard.SetFileDropList(paths); }); } The exception tells me : Current thread must be set to single thread apartment (STA) mode before OLE calls can be made. Ensure that your Main function has STAThreadAttribute marked on it. But the main has already the [STAThread] attribute. How to solve it ? Thanks in advance for any help

  Read the article

• C++ Static Initializer - Is it thread safe

  - by Yan Cheng CHEOK

  Usually, when I try to initialize a static variable class Test2 { public: static vector<string> stringList; private: static bool __init; static bool init() { stringList.push_back("string1"); stringList.push_back("string2"); stringList.push_back("string3"); return true; } }; // Implement vector<string> Test2::stringList; bool Test2::__init = Test2::init(); Is the following code thread safe, during static variable initialization? Is there any better way to static initialize stringlist, instead of using a seperate static function (init)?

  Read the article

• Are static delegates thread-safe?

  - by leypascua

  Consider this code snippet: public static class ApplicationContext { private static Func<TService> Uninitialized<TService>() { throw new InvalidOperationException(); } public static Func<IAuthenticationProvider> AuthenticationProvider = Uninitialized<IAuthenticationProvider>(); public static Func<IUnitOfWorkFactory> UnitOfWorkFactory = Uninitialized<IUnitOfWorkFactory>(); } //can also be in global.asax if used in a web app. public static void Main(string[] args) { ApplicationContext.AuthenticationProvider = () => new LdapAuthenticationProvider(); ApplicationContext.UnitOfWorkFactory = () => new EFUnitOfWorkFactory(); } //somewhere in the code.. say an ASP.NET MVC controller ApplicationContext.AuthenticationProvider().SignIn(username, true); Are delegates in the static class ApplicationContext thread-safe in the sense that multiple-threads can invoke them? What potential problems will I face if I pursue this approach?

  Read the article

• Java - Thread safety of ArrayList constructors

  - by andy boot

  I am looking at this piece of code. This constructor delegates to the native method "System.arraycopy" Is it Thread safe? And by that I mean can it ever throw a ConcurrentModificationException? public Collection<Object> getConnections(Collection<Object> someCollection) { return new ArrayList<Object>(someCollection); } Does it make any difference if the collection being copied is ThreadSafe eg a CopyOnWriteArrayList? public Collection<Object> getConnections(CopyOnWriteArrayList<Object> someCollection) { return new ArrayList<Object>(someCollection); }

  Read the article

• How can I pass a Context object to a thread on call

  - by Pentium10

  I have this code fragment: public static class ExportDatabaseFileTask extends AsyncTask<String, Void, Boolean> { private final ProgressDialog dialog = new ProgressDialog(ctx); protected void onPreExecute(); protected Boolean doInBackground(final String... args); protected void onPostExecute(final Boolean success); } I execute this thread as new ExportDatabaseFileTask().execute(); As you see I use a ctx as Context variable in the new ProgressDialog call, how do I pass a context to the call method? to this one: new ExportDatabaseFileTask().execute();*

  Read the article

• Thread processing in EMS connection

  - by aladine

  I am setting up a client and exchange project and both are connecting to a remote server. Exchange will connect to the server by EMS connection. While client will connect by FIX. For the aim of building of black box testing, both client and exchange engine will be given some predefined testcases to send and receive to the server. I design the client engine with multithread processing to manipulate many testcases. Actually it is able to run succesfully. For exchange engine, I wonder that multi thread is applicable in the context that the exchange engine just need to publish a message when it received msg from subscribed topic on server. Flow of messages transmission: Client--SERVER--Exchange FIX EMS Exchange--SERVER--Client EMS FIX Thanks if you can help me on this issue.

  Read the article

• How can CopyOnWriteArrayList be thread-safe?

  - by Shooshpanchick

  I've taken a look into OpenJDK's sources of CopyOnWriteArrayList and it seems that all write operations are protected by the same lock and read operations are not protected at all. As I understand, under JMM all accesses to a variable (both read and write) should be protected by lock or reordering effects may occur. For example, set(int, E) method contains these lines (under lock): /* 1 */ int len = elements.length; /* 2 */ Object[] newElements = Arrays.copyOf(elements, len); /* 3 */ newElements[index] = element; /* 4 */ setArray(newElements); The get(int) method, on the other hand, only does return get(getArray(), index);. In my understanding of JMM, this means that get may observe the array in an inconsistent state if statements 1-4 are reordered like 1-2(new)-4-2(copyOf)-3. Do I understand JMM incorrectly or is there any other explanations on why CopyOnWriteArrayList is thread-safe?

  Read the article

• Does this simple cache class need thread synchronization?

  - by DayOne

  Does this simple cache class need thread synchronization ... if I remove the lock _syncLock statement will encounter any problems? I think i can remove the locks as the references should be updated correctly right? ... BUt i'm think whar happens if client code is iterating over the GetMyDataStructure method and it get replaced? Thanks! public sealed class Cache { private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); private IDictionary<int, MyDataStructure> _cache; public Cache() { Refresh(); } public void Refresh() { lock (_syncLock) { _cache = DAL.GetMyDataStructure(); } } public IDictionary<int, MyDataStructure> **GetMyDataStructure**() { lock (_syncLock) { return _cache; } } }

  Read the article

• Grid computing projects similar to NGrid (thread based)

  - by DivdeAndConquer

  Hello there, first time poster. This is a great place for reading about programming problems. I've been looking at some grid computing projects for .Net/Mono and stumbled upon NGrid. NGrid seems really appealing for grid computing because you simply pass threads to it and there is very little modification you have to make to your code. However, I see that NGrid (http://ngrid.sourceforge.net/?page=overview) is still at version 0.7 and hasn't been updated since May 2008. So, I'm wondering if there are any other grid computing projects that use a similar thread-passing architecture and if anyone has had success using NGrid.

  Read the article

• too many threads due to synch communication

  - by MasoudIzzy

  I'm using threads and xmlrpclib in python at the same time. Periodically, I create a bunch of thread to complete a service on a remote server via xmlrpclib. The problem is that, there are times that the remote server doesn't answer. This causes the thread to wait forever for a response which it never gets. Over time, number of threads in this state increases and will reach the maximum number of allowed threads on the system (I'm using fedora). I tried to use socket.setdefaulttimeout(10); but the exception that is created by that will cause the server to defunct. I used it at server side but it seems that it doesn't work :/ Any idea how can I handle this issue?

  Read the article

• Serialized task distribution: use thread or epoll?

  - by hpsmouse

  Now I'm in such a situation that there is a group of predefined tasks for multiple clients to do(any client can take any task). When a client connects to the server, server choose a task from the uncompleted tasks and send it to the client. It takes a while for the client to finish the task and send the result back to the server. Since a task should be sent to only one client, server should process requests in a serialized way. Now I have two plans to do it: create a thread for each client connection and all the threads take turns accessing the task pool, or use epoll listening on all the connection and process for each event of clients. Which one is better for the job? Or is there any other ideas? The server will be run on a multi-core machine.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >