Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 41/66 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Should I pass a SqlDataReader by reference or not when passing it out to multiple threads.

    - by deroby
    Hi all, being new to c# I've run into this 'conundrum' when passing around a SqlDataReader between different threads. Without going into too much detail, the idea is to have a main thread fetching data from the database (a large recordset) and then have a helper-task run through this record by record and doing some stuff based upon the contents of this. There is no feedback to the recordset, it simply wades through until no records are left. This works fine, but given the nature of the job at hand it should be possible to have this job spread over different threads (CPUs) to maximize throughput (the order of execution is of no significance). The question then becomes, when I pass this recordset in a SqlDataReader, do I have to use ref or not ? It kind of boils down to the question : if I pass the object around without specifying ref, won't it create new copies in memory and have records processed n times ? Or, don't I risk having the record-position being moved forward while not all fields have been fully read yet ? The latter seems more like a 'data racing' issue and probably is covered by the lock()ing mechanism (or not?). My initial take on the problem was that it doesn't really hurt passing the variable using ref, yet as a colleague put it : "you only need ref when you're doing something wrong" =) Additionally using ref restricts me from applying a Using() construction too which isn't very nice either. I thus create a "basic" project that tackles the same approach but without the ref notation. Tests so far show that it works flawlessly on a Core2Duo (2cpu) using any number of threads, yet I'm still a bit wary... What do you experts think about this ? Use ref or not ? You can find the test-project here as it seems I can't upload it to this question directly ?!? ps: it's just a test-project and I'm new to c#, so please be gentle on me when breaking down the code =P

    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

  • Best way to implement game loop without freezing UI thread

    - by Matt H
    I'm trying to make a simple 2D game in Java. So far I have a JFrame, with a menubar, and a class which extends JPanel and overrides it's paint method. Now, I need to get a game loop going, where I will update the position of images and so on. However, I'm stuck at how best to achieve this. Should I use multi-threading, because surely, if you put an infinite loop on the main thread, the UI (and thus my menu bar) will freeze up? Here's my code so far: import java.awt.Color; import java.awt.Graphics; import javax.swing.JPanel; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class GameCanvas extends JPanel { public void paint(Graphics g) { while (true) { g.setColor(Color.DARK_GRAY); try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } import javax.swing.JFrame; import javax.swing.JMenu; import javax.swing.JMenuBar; import javax.swing.JMenuItem; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class Main extends JFrame { GameCanvas canvas = new GameCanvas(); final int FRAME_HEIGHT = 400; final int FRAME_WIDTH = 400; public static void main(String args[]) { new Main(); } public Main() { super("Game"); JMenuBar menuBar = new JMenuBar(); JMenu fileMenu = new JMenu("File"); JMenuItem startMenuItem = new JMenuItem("Pause"); menuBar.add(fileMenu); fileMenu.add(startMenuItem); super.add(canvas); super.setVisible(true); super.setSize(FRAME_WIDTH, FRAME_WIDTH); super.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); super.setJMenuBar(menuBar); } } Any pointers/tips? Also, where should I put my loop? In my main class, or my GameCanvas class? Any help is appreciated, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is a new thread in a Visual Studio test project aborted when the test ends?

    - by Michel
    Hi, i have to do some message exchange with a 3rd party (in a website). When the client posts a page, i start the message exchange. When that doesn't succeed for some reason, i report this to the client by rendering the page with a message. On the background, in a separate thread, i start a process to send abort messages to the 3rd party. I can't do this while the user is waiting for the page to come back, because it might take a few minutes. But in a test project, the test ends when the message to the 3rd party is sent, and after the new thread is started. But it seems that the new thread also ends, when the test is done. Is that normal behaviour? I do start the thread in a new class with a reference to 2 objects from the class which tries to send the message in the first place, may that be a problem?

    Read the article

  • What are some good ways to do intermachine locking?

    - by mike
    Our server cluster consists of 20 machines, each with 10 pids of 5 threads. We'd like some way to prevent any two threads, in any pid, on any machine, from modifying the same object at the same time. Our code's written in Python and runs on Linux, if that helps narrow things down. Also, it's a pretty rare case that two such threads want to do this, so we'd prefer something that optimizes the "only one thread needs this object" case to be really fast, even if it means that the "one thread has locked this object and another one needs it" case isn't great. What are some of the best practices?

    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

  • 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

  • Parallel software?

    - by mavric
    What is the meaning of "parallel software" and what are the differences between "parallel software" and "regular software"? What are its advantages and disadvantages? Does writing "parallel software" require a specific hardware or programming language ?

    Read the article

  • non blocking client server chat application in java using nio

    - by Amith
    I built a simple chat application using nio channels. I am very much new to networking as well as threads. This application is for communicating with server (Server / Client chat application). My problem is that multiple clients are not supported by the server. How do I solve this problem? What's the bug in my code? public class Clientcore extends Thread { SelectionKey selkey=null; Selector sckt_manager=null; public void coreClient() { System.out.println("please enter the text"); BufferedReader stdin=new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)); SocketChannel sc = null; try { sc = SocketChannel.open(); sc.configureBlocking(false); sc.connect(new InetSocketAddress(8888)); int i=0; while (!sc.finishConnect()) { } for(int ii=0;ii>-22;ii++) { System.out.println("Enter the text"); String HELLO_REQUEST =stdin.readLine().toString(); if(HELLO_REQUEST.equalsIgnoreCase("end")) { break; } System.out.println("Sending a request to HelloServer"); ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(HELLO_REQUEST.getBytes()); sc.write(buffer); } } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { if (sc != null) { try { sc.close(); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } public void run() { try { coreClient(); } catch(Exception ej) { ej.printStackTrace(); }}} public class ServerCore extends Thread { SelectionKey selkey=null; Selector sckt_manager=null; public void run() { try { coreServer(); } catch(Exception ej) { ej.printStackTrace(); } } private void coreServer() { try { ServerSocketChannel ssc = ServerSocketChannel.open(); try { ssc.socket().bind(new InetSocketAddress(8888)); while (true) { sckt_manager=SelectorProvider.provider().openSelector(); ssc.configureBlocking(false); SocketChannel sc = ssc.accept(); register_server(ssc,SelectionKey.OP_ACCEPT); if (sc == null) { } else { System.out.println("Received an incoming connection from " + sc.socket().getRemoteSocketAddress()); printRequest(sc); System.err.println("testing 1"); String HELLO_REPLY = "Sample Display"; ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(HELLO_REPLY.getBytes()); System.err.println("testing 2"); sc.write(buffer); System.err.println("testing 3"); sc.close(); }}} catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { if (ssc != null) { try { ssc.close(); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } catch(Exception E) { System.out.println("Ex in servCORE "+E); } } private static void printRequest(SocketChannel sc) throws IOException { ReadableByteChannel rbc = Channels.newChannel(sc.socket().getInputStream()); WritableByteChannel wbc = Channels.newChannel(System.out); ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(1024); // read 1024 bytes while (rbc.read(b) != -1) { b.flip(); while (b.hasRemaining()) { wbc.write(b); System.out.println(); } b.clear(); } } public void register_server(ServerSocketChannel ssc,int selectionkey_ops)throws Exception { ssc.register(sckt_manager,selectionkey_ops); }} public class HelloClient { public void coreClientChat() { Clientcore t=new Clientcore(); new Thread(t).start(); } public static void main(String[] args)throws Exception { HelloClient cl= new HelloClient(); cl.coreClientChat(); }} public class HelloServer { public void coreServerChat() { ServerCore t=new ServerCore(); new Thread(t).start(); } public static void main(String[] args) { HelloServer st= new HelloServer(); st.coreServerChat(); }}

    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

  • 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

  • Race condition for thread startup

    - by Ozzah
    A similar question was asked here, but the answers generally all seem to relate to the lambda notation. I get a similar result without the lambda so I thought I'd ask for some clarification: Say I have something like this: for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) (new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate() { Console.WriteLine("Thread " + i); }))).Start(); One would expect the following output: Thread 0 Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3 Thread 4 Now I realise that the threads aren't started in any particular order, so let's just assume that the above lines can come out in any order. But that is not what happens. What instead happens: Thread 3 Thread 4 Thread 4 Thread 4 Thread 4 or something similar, which leads me to believe that rather than passing the value if i, it is passing the reference. (Which is weird, since an int is a value type). Doing something like this: for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) (new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate() { int j = i; Console.WriteLine("Thread " + j); }))).Start(); does not help either, even though we have made a copy of i. I am assuming the reason is that it hasn't made a copy of i in time. Doing something like this: for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { (new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate() { Console.WriteLine("Thread " + i); }))).Start(); Thread.Sleep(50); } seems to fix the problem, however it is extremely undesirable as we're wasting 50ms on each iteration, not to mention the fact that if the computer is heavily loaded then maybe 50ms may not be enough. Here is a sample with my current, specific problem: Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(delgate() { threadLogic(param1, param2, param3, param4); })); t.Start(); param1 = param2 = param3 = param4 = null; with: void threadLogic(object param1, object param2, object param3, object param4) { // Do some stuff here... } I want threadLogic() to run in its own thread, however the above code gives a null reference exception. I assume this is because the values are set to null before the thread has had a chance to start. Again, putting a Thread.Sleep(100) works, but it is an awful solution from every aspect. What do you guys recommend for this particular type of race condition?

    Read the article

  • Servlet 3 spec and ThreadLocal

    - by mindas
    As far as I know, Servlet 3 spec introduces asynchronous processing feature. Among other things, this will mean that the same thread can and will be reused for processing another, concurrent, HTTP request(s). This isn't revolutionary, at least for people who worked with NIO before. Anyway, this leads to another important thing: no ThreadLocal variables as a temporary storage for the request data. Because if the same thread suddenly becomes the carrier thread to a different HTTP request, request-local data will be exposed to another request. All of that is my pure speculation based on reading articles, I haven't got time to play with any Servlet 3 implementations (Tomcat 7, GlassFish 3.0.X, etc.). So, the questions: Am I correct to assume that ThreadLocal will cease to be a convenient hack to keep the request data? Has anybody played with any of Servlet 3 implementations and tried using ThreadLocals to prove the above? Apart from storing data inside HTTP Session, are there any other similar easy-to-reach hacks you could possibly advise?

    Read the article

  • Why does every thread in my application use a different hibernate session?

    - by Ittai
    Hi, I have a web-application which uses hibernate and for some reason every thread (httprequest or other threads related to queueing) uses a different session. I've implemented a HibernateSessionFactory class which looks like this: public class HibernateSessionFactory { private static final ThreadLocal<Session> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Session>(); private static Configuration configuration = new AnnotationConfiguration(); private static org.hibernate.SessionFactory sessionFactory; static { try { configuration.configure(configFile); sessionFactory = configuration.buildSessionFactory(); } catch (Exception e) {} } private HibernateSessionFactory() {} public static Session getSession() throws HibernateException { Session session = (Session) threadLocal.get(); if (session == null || !session.isOpen()) { if (sessionFactory == null) { rebuildSessionFactory();//This method basically does what the static init block does } session = (sessionFactory != null) ? sessionFactory.openSession(): null; threadLocal.set(session); } return session; } //More non relevant methods here. Now from my testing it seems that the threadLocal member is indeed initialized only once when the class is first loaded by the JVM but for some reason when different threads access the getSession() method they use different sessions. When a thread first accesses this class (Session) threadLocal.get(); will return null but as expected all other access requests will yeild the same session. I'm not sure how this can be happening as the threadLocal variable is final and the method threadLocal.set(session) is only used in the above context (which I'm 99.9% sure has to yeild a non null session as I would have encountered a NullPointerException at a different part of my app). I'm not sure this is relevant but these are the main parts of my hibernate.cfg.xml file: <hibernate-configuration> <session-factory> <property name="connection.url">someURL</property> <property name="connection.driver_class"> com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerDriver</property> <property name="dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.SQLServerDialect</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.isolation">1</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.username">User</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.password">Password</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.pool_size">10</property> <property name="show_sql">false</property> <property name="current_session_context_class">thread</property> <property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto">update</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache">false</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.provider_class">org.hibernate.cache.NoCacheProvider</property> <!-- Mapping files --> I'd appreciate any help granted and of course if anyone has any questions I'd be happy to clarify. Ittai

    Read the article

  • Queue access to the database to avoid multiple cache items

    - by MikeJ
    I have a music related ASP.NET web site which caches a lot of static information from the database on the first request. Sometimes, the application is reset and cache is cleared while the application is on heavy load and then all http requests go to the database to retrieve that static data and cache it for other requests. How can I ensure that only one request go to the database and cache the results, so that other request simply read that info from cache and not needlessly retrieve the same info over and over again. Can I use thread locking? For example, can I do something like lock(this) { db access here }?

    Read the article

  • [C++] Is it possible to use threads to speed up file reading ?

    - by Mister Mystère
    Hi there, I want to read a file as fast as possible (40k lines) [Edit : the rest is obsolete]. Edit: Andres Jaan Tack suggested a solution based on one thread per file, and I want to be sure I got this (thus this is the fastest way) : One thread per entry file reads it whole and stocks its content in a container associated (- as many containers as there are entry files) One thread calculates the linear combination of every cell read by the input threads, and stocks the results in the exit container (associated to the output file). One thread writes by block (every 4kB of data, so about 10 lines) the content of the output container. Should I deduce that I must not use m-mapped files (because the program's on standby waiting for the data) ? Thanks aforehand. Sincerely, Mister mystère.

    Read the article

  • C++ - how does Sleep() and cin work?

    - by quano
    Just curious. How does actually the function Sleep() work (declared in windows.h)? Maybe not just that implementation, but anyone. With that I mean - how is it implemented? How can it make the code "stop" for a specific time? Also curious about how cin and those actually work. What do they do exactly? The only way I know how to "block" something from continuing to run is with a while loop, but considering that that takes a huge amount of processing power in comparison to what's happening when you're invoking methods to read from stdin (just compare a while (true) to a read from stdin), I'm guessing that isn't what they do.

    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

  • C - How to use both aio_read() and aio_write().

    - by Slav
    I implement game server where I need to both read and write. So I accept incoming connection and start reading from it using aio_read() but when I need to send something, I stop reading using aio_cancel() and then use aio_write(). Within write's callback I resume reading. So, I do read all the time but when I need to send something - I pause reading. It works for ~20% of time - in other case call to aio_cancel() fails with "Operation now in progress" - and I cannot cancel it (even within permanent while cycle). So, my added write operation never happens. How to use these functions well? What did I missed? EDIT: Used under Linux 2.6.35. Ubuntu 10 - 32 bit. Example code: void handle_read(union sigval sigev_value) { /* handle data or disconnection */ } void handle_write(union sigval sigev_value) { /* free writing buffer memory */ } void start() { const int acceptorSocket = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); struct sockaddr_in addr; memset(&addr, 0, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); addr.sin_family = AF_INET; addr.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY; addr.sin_port = htons(port); bind(acceptorSocket, (struct sockaddr*)&addr, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); listen(acceptorSocket, SOMAXCONN); struct sockaddr_in address; socklen_t addressLen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in); for(;;) { const int incomingSocket = accept(acceptorSocket, (struct sockaddr*)&address, &addressLen); if(incomingSocket == -1) { /* handle error ... */} else { //say socket to append outcoming messages at writing: const int currentFlags = fcntl(incomingSocket, F_GETFL, 0); if(currentFlags < 0) { /* handle error ... */ } if(fcntl(incomingSocket, F_SETFL, currentFlags | O_APPEND) == -1) { /* handle another error ... */ } //start reading: struct aiocb* readingAiocb = new struct aiocb; memset(readingAiocb, 0, sizeof(struct aiocb)); readingAiocb->aio_nbytes = MY_SOME_BUFFER_SIZE; readingAiocb->aio_fildes = socketDesc; readingAiocb->aio_buf = mySomeReadBuffer; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_notify = SIGEV_THREAD; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_value.sival_ptr = (void*)mySomeData; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_notify_function = handle_read; if(aio_read(readingAiocb) != 0) { /* handle error ... */ } } } } //called at any time from server side: send(void* data, const size_t dataLength) { //... some thread-safety precautions not needed here ... const int cancellingResult = aio_cancel(socketDesc, readingAiocb); if(cancellingResult != AIO_CANCELED) { //this one happens ~80% of the time - embracing previous call to permanent while cycle does not help: if(cancellingResult == AIO_NOTCANCELED) { puts(strerror(aio_return(readingAiocb))); // "Operation now in progress" /* don't know what to do... */ } } //otherwise it's okay to send: else { aio_write(...); } }

    Read the article

  • Explicit call of Runnable.run

    - by klaudio
    Hi, I have a question. Somebody, who was working on my code before me, created some method and passed Runnable as parameter, more likely: void myMethod(Runnable runnable){ runnable.run(); } Then calling myMethod out of main looks like: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new Runnable(){ public void run() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } So, to supply parameter to myMethod I need to instantiate object of (in this case anonymous) class implementing Runnable. My question is: is it necessary to use Runnable in this example? Can I use any different interface? I mean I can create new interface with single method i.e. interface MyInterface{ void doThis(); } then change look of myMethod: void myMethod(MyInterface myObject){ myObject.doThis(); } And of course client too: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new MyInterface (){ public void doThis() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } Or maybe something is about Runnable?!

    Read the article

  • ReaderWriterLockSlim question.

    - by Kamarey
    There are lots written about the ReaderWriterLockSlim class which allows multiple read and a single write. All of these (at least that I had found) tell how to use it without much explanation why and how it works. The standard code sample is: lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock(); try { if (test if write is required) { lock.EnterWriteLock(); try { change the resourse here. } finally { lock.ExitWriteLock(); } } } finally { lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock(); } The question is: if upgradeable lock permits only a single thread to enter its section, why I should call EnterWriteLock method within? What will happen if I don't? Or what will happen if instead of EnterUpgradeableReadLock I will call EnterWriteLock and will write to a resource without using upgradeable lock at all?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >