Search Results

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

Page 43/66 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

  • java will this threading setup work or what can i be doing wrong

    - by Erik
    Im a bit unsure and have to get advice. I have the: public class MyApp extends JFrame{ And from there i do; MyServer = new MyServer (this); MyServer.execute(); MyServer is a: public class MyServer extends SwingWorker<String, Object> { MyServer is doing listen_socket.accept() in the doInBackground() and on connection it create a new class Connection implements Runnable { I have the belove DbHelper that are a singleton. It holds an Sqlite connected. Im initiating it in the above MyApp and passing references all the way in to my runnable: class Connection implements Runnable { My question is what will happen if there are two simultaneous read or `write? My thought here was the all methods in the singleton are synchronized and would put all calls in the queue waiting to get a lock on the synchronized method. Will this work or what can i change? public final class DbHelper { private boolean initalized = false; private String HomePath = ""; private File DBFile; private static final String SYSTEM_TABLE = "systemtable"; Connection con = null; private Statement stmt; private static final ContentProviderHelper instance = new ContentProviderHelper (); public static ContentProviderHelper getInstance() { return instance; } private DbHelper () { if (!initalized) { initDB(); initalized = true; } } private void initDB() { DBFile = locateDBFile(); try { Class.forName("org.sqlite.JDBC"); // create a database connection con = DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:sqlite:J:/workspace/workComputer/user_ptpp"); } catch (SQLException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } private File locateDBFile() { File f = null; try{ HomePath = System.getProperty("user.dir"); System.out.println("HomePath: " + HomePath); f = new File(HomePath + "/user_ptpp"); if (f.canRead()) return f; else { boolean success = f.createNewFile(); if (success) { System.out.println("File did not exist and was created " + HomePath); // File did not exist and was created } else { System.out.println("File already exists " + HomePath); // File already exists } } } catch (IOException e) { System.out.println("Maybe try a new directory. " + HomePath); //Maybe try a new directory. } return f; } public String getHomePath() { return HomePath; } private synchronized String getDate(){ SimpleDateFormat dateFormat = new SimpleDateFormat("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss"); Date date = new Date(); return dateFormat.format(date); } public synchronized String getSelectedSystemTableColumn( String column) { String query = "select "+ column + " from " + SYSTEM_TABLE ; try { stmt = con.createStatement(ResultSet.TYPE_FORWARD_ONLY, ResultSet.CONCUR_READ_ONLY); ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery(query); while (rs.next()) { String value = rs.getString(column); if(value == null || value == "") return ""; else return value; } } catch (SQLException e ) { e.printStackTrace(); return ""; } finally { } return ""; } }

    Read the article

  • POSIX Threads and signal masks

    - by Max
    Is there a way to change the signal mask of a thread from another thread? I am supposed to write a multithreaded C application that doesn't use mutex, semaphores and condition variables, only signals. So it would look like something like this: The main Thread sends SIGUSR1 to its process and and one of the 2 threads (not including the main thread), will respond to the signal and block SIGUSR1 from the sigmask and sleep. Then the main thread sends SIGUSR1 again, the other thread will respond, block SIGUSR1 from its sigmask, unblock SIGUSR1 from the other threads sigmask, so it will respond to SIGUSR1 again. So essentially whenever the main thread sends SIGUSR1 the two other threads swap between each other. Can somebody help?

    Read the article

  • ThreadPoolExecutor fixed thread pool with custom behaviour

    - by Simone Margaritelli
    i'm new to this topic ... i'm using a ThreadPoolExecutor created with Executors.newFixedThreadPool( 10 ) and after the pool is full i'm starting to get a RejectedExecutionException . Is there a way to "force" the executor to put the new task in a "wait" status instead of rejecting it and starting it when the pool is freed ? Thanks Issue regarding this https://github.com/evilsocket/dsploit/issues/159 Line of code involved https://github.com/evilsocket/dsploit/blob/master/src/it/evilsocket/dsploit/net/NetworkDiscovery.java#L150

    Read the article

  • VB.NET Two different approaches to generic cross-threaded operations; which is better?

    - by BASnappl
    VB.NET 2010, .NET 4 Hello, I recently read about using SynchronizationContext objects to control the execution thread for some code. I have been using a generic subroutine to handle (possibly) cross-thread calls for things like updating UI controls that utilizes Invoke. I'm an amateur and have a hard time understanding the pros and cons of any particular approach. I am looking for some insight on which approach might be preferable and why. Update: This question is motivated, in part, by statements such as the following from the MSDN page on Control.InvokeRequired. An even better solution is to use the SynchronizationContext returned by SynchronizationContext rather than a control for cross-thread marshaling. Method 1: Public Sub InvokeControl(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of T)) If Control.InvokeRequired Then Control.Invoke(New Action(Of T, Action(Of T))(AddressOf InvokeControl), New Object() {Control, Action}) Else Action(Control) End If End Sub Method 2: Public Sub UIAction(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of Control)) SyncContext.Send(New Threading.SendOrPostCallback(Sub() Action(Control)), Nothing) End Sub Where SyncContext is a Threading.SynchronizationContext object defined in the constructor of my UI form: Public Sub New() InitializeComponent() SyncContext = WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext.Current End Sub Then, if I wanted to update a control (e.g., Label1) on the UI form, I would do: InvokeControl(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") or UIAction(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") So, what do y'all think? Is one way preferred or does it depend on the context? If you have the time, verbosity would be appreciated! Thanks in advance, Brian

    Read the article

  • Various way to stop a thread - which is the correct way

    - by Yan Cheng CHEOK
    I had came across different suggestion of stopping a thread. May I know, which is the correct way? Or it depends? Using Thread Variable http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html private volatile Thread blinker; public void stop() { blinker = null; } public void run() { Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread(); while (blinker == thisThread) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } } Using boolean flag private volatile boolean flag; public void stop() { flag = false; } public void run() { while (flag) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } } Using Thread Variable together with interrupt private volatile Thread blinker; public void stop() { blinker.interrupt(); blinker = null; } public void run() { Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread(); while (!thisThread.isInterrupted() && blinker == thisThread) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } }

    Read the article

  • Caveats to be aware of when using threading in Python?

    - by knorv
    I'm quite new to threading in Python and have a couple of beginner questions. When starting more than say fifty threads using the Python threading module I start getting MemoryError. The threads themselves are very slim and not very memory hungry, so it seems like it is the overhead of the threading that causes the memory issues. Is there something I can do to increase the memory capacity or otherwise make Python allow for a larger number of threads? What is the maximum number of threads you've been able to run in your Python code using the threading module? Did you do any tricks to achieve that number? Are there any other caveats to be aware of when using the threading module?

    Read the article

  • Problems with Threading in Python 2.5, KeyError: 51, Help debugging?

    - by vignesh-k
    I have a python script which runs a particular script large number of times (for monte carlo purpose) and the way I have scripted it is that, I queue up the script the desired number of times it should be run then I spawn threads and each thread runs the script once and again when its done. Once the script in a particular thread is finished, the output is written to a file by accessing a lock (so my guess was that only one thread accesses the lock at a given time). Once the lock is released by one thread, the next thread accesses it and adds its output to the previously written file and rewrites it. I am not facing a problem when the number of iterations is small like 10 or 20 but when its large like 50 or 150, python returns a KeyError: 51 telling me element doesn't exist and the error it points out to is within the lock which puzzles me since only one thread should access the lock at once and I do not expect an error. This is the class I use: class errorclass(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, queue): self.__queue=queue threading.Thread.__init__(self) def run(self): while 1: item = self.__queue.get() if item is None: break result = myfunction() lock = threading.RLock() lock.acquire() ADD entries from current thread to entries in file and REWRITE FILE lock.release() queue = Queue.Queue() for i in range(threads): errorclass(queue).start() for i in range(desired iterations): queue.put(i) for i in range(threads): queue.put(None) Python returns with KeyError: 51 for large number of desired iterations during the adding/write file operation after lock access, I am wondering if this is the correct way to use the lock since every thread has a lock operation rather than every thread accessing a shared lock? What would be the way to rectify this?

    Read the article

  • JNI String Corruption

    - by Chris Dennett
    Hi everyone, I'm getting weird string corruption across JNI calls which is causing problems on the the Java side. Every so often, I'll get a corrupted string in the passed array, which sometimes has existing parts of the original non-corrupted string. The C++ code is supposed to set the first index of the array to the address, it's a nasty hack to get around method call limitations. Additionally, the application is multi-threaded. remoteaddress[0]: 10.1.1.2:49153 remoteaddress[0]: 10.1.4.2:49153 remoteaddress[0]: 10.1.6.2:49153 remoteaddress[0]: 10.1.2.2:49153 remoteaddress[0]: 10.1.9.2:49153 remoteaddress[0]: {garbage here} java.lang.NullPointerException at kokuks.KKSAddress.<init>(KKSAddress.java:139) at kokuks.KKSAddress.createAddress(KKSAddress.java:48) at kokuks.KKSSocket._recvFrom(KKSSocket.java:963) at kokuks.scheduler.RecvOperation$1.execute(RecvOperation.java:144) at kokuks.scheduler.RecvOperation$1.execute(RecvOperation.java:1) at kokuks.KKSEvent.run(KKSEvent.java:58) at kokuks.KokuKS.handleJNIEventExpiry(KokuKS.java:872) at kokuks.KokuKS.handleJNIEventExpiry_fjni(KokuKS.java:880) at kokuks.KokuKS.runSimulator_jni(Native Method) at kokuks.KokuKS$1.run(KokuKS.java:773) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:717) remoteaddress[0]: 10.1.7.2:49153 The null pointer exception comes from trying to use the corrupt string. In C++, the address prints to standard out normally, but doing this reduces the rate of errors, from what I can see. The C++ code (if it helps): /* * Class: kokuks_KKSSocket * Method: recvFrom_jni * Signature: (Ljava/lang/String;[Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;IIJ)I */ JNIEXPORT jint JNICALL Java_kokuks_KKSSocket_recvFrom_1jni (JNIEnv *env, jobject obj, jstring sockpath, jobjectArray addrarr, jobject buf, jint position, jint limit, jlong flags) { if (addrarr && env->GetArrayLength(addrarr) > 0) { env->SetObjectArrayElement(addrarr, 0, NULL); } jboolean iscopy; const char* cstr = env->GetStringUTFChars(sockpath, &iscopy); std::string spath = std::string(cstr); env->ReleaseStringUTFChars(sockpath, cstr); // release me! if (KKS_DEBUG) { std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << std::endl; } ns3::Ptr<ns3::Socket> socket = ns3::Names::Find<ns3::Socket>(spath); if (!socket) { std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " socket not found for path!!" << std::endl; return -1; // not found } if (!addrarr) { std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " array to set sender is null" << std::endl; return -1; } jsize arrsize = env->GetArrayLength(addrarr); if (arrsize < 1) { std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " array too small to set sender!" << std::endl; return -1; } uint8_t* bufaddr = (uint8_t*)env->GetDirectBufferAddress(buf); long bufcap = env->GetDirectBufferCapacity(buf); uint8_t* realbufaddr = bufaddr + position; uint32_t remaining = limit - position; if (KKS_DEBUG) { std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " bufaddr: " << bufaddr << ", cap: " << bufcap << std::endl; } ns3::Address aaddr; uint32_t mflags = flags; int ret = socket->RecvFrom(realbufaddr, remaining, mflags, aaddr); if (ret > 0) { if (KKS_DEBUG) std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " addr: " << aaddr << std::endl; ns3::InetSocketAddress insa = ns3::InetSocketAddress::ConvertFrom(aaddr); std::stringstream ss; insa.GetIpv4().Print(ss); ss << ":" << insa.GetPort() << std::ends; if (KKS_DEBUG) std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " addr: " << ss.str() << std::endl; jsize index = 0; const char *cstr = ss.str().c_str(); jstring jaddr = env->NewStringUTF(cstr); if (jaddr == NULL) std::cout << "[kks-c~" << spath << "] " << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " jaddr is null!!" << std::endl; //jaddr = (jstring)env->NewGlobalRef(jaddr); env->SetObjectArrayElement(addrarr, index, jaddr); //if (env->ExceptionOccurred()) { // env->ExceptionDescribe(); //} } jint jret = ret; return jret; } The Java code (if it helps): /** * Pass an array of size 1 into remote address, and this will be set with * the sender of the packet (hax). This emulates C++ references. * * @param remoteaddress * @param buf * @param flags * @return */ public int _recvFrom(final KKSAddress remoteaddress[], ByteBuffer buf, long flags) { if (!kks.isCurrentlyThreadSafe()) throw new RuntimeException( "Not currently thread safe for ns-3 functions!" ); //lock.lock(); try { if (!buf.isDirect()) return -6; // not direct!! final String[] remoteAddrStr = new String[1]; int ret = 0; ret = recvFrom_jni( path.toPortableString(), remoteAddrStr, buf, buf.position(), buf.limit(), flags ); if (ret > 0) { System.out.println("remoteaddress[0]: " + remoteAddrStr[0]); remoteaddress[0] = KKSAddress.createAddress(remoteAddrStr[0]); buf.position(buf.position() + ret); } return ret; } finally { errNo = _getErrNo(); //lock.unlock(); } } public int recvFrom(KKSAddress[] fromaddress, final ByteBuffer bytes, long flags, long timeoutMS) { if (KokuKS.DEBUG_MODE) printMessage("public synchronized int recvFrom(KKSAddress[] fromaddress, final ByteBuffer bytes, long flags, long timeoutMS)"); if (kks.isCurrentlyThreadSafe()) { return _recvFrom(fromaddress, bytes, flags); // avoid event } fromaddress[0] = null; RecvOperation ro = new RecvOperation( kks, this, flags, true, bytes, timeoutMS ); ro.start(); fromaddress[0] = ro.getFrom(); return ro.getRetCode(); }

    Read the article

  • Do something else if ReadWriteSlimlock is held

    - by user43838
    Hi everyone, I have implemented ReaderWriterLockSlim, Now i don't want it to wait at the lock. I want to do something else if the lock is held. I considered using is isWriterLockHeld but it does not makes much sense to me, Since if two threads come in at the same time and enter the if statement at the same time one will still be waiting at the lock here is my code. ReaderWriterLockSlim rw = GetLoadingLock(parameters); rw = GetLoadingLock(parameters); try { rw.EnterWriteLock(); item = this.retrieveCacheItem(parameters.ToString(), false); if (item != null) { parameters.DataCameFromCache = true; // if the data was found in the cache, return it immediately return item.data; } else { try { object loaditem = null; itemsLoading[parameters.ToString()] = true; loaditem = this.retrieveDataFromStore(parameters); return loaditem; } finally { itemsLoading.Remove(parameters.ToString()); } } } finally { rw.ExitWriteLock(); } Can anyone please guide me in the right direction with this. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Threading errors with Application.LoadComponent (key already exists)

    - by Kellls
    MSDN says that public static members of System.Windows.Application are thread safe. But when I try to run my app with multiple threads I get the following exception: ArgumentException: An entry with the same key already exists. at System.ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentException(ExceptionResource resource) at System.Collections.Generic.SortedList`2.Add(TKey key, TValue value) at System.IO.Packaging.Package.AddIfNoPrefixCollisionDetected(ValidatedPartUri partUri, PackagePart part) at System.IO.Packaging.Package.GetPartHelper(Uri partUri) at System.IO.Packaging.Package.GetPart(Uri partUri) at System.Windows.Application.GetResourceOrContentPart(Uri uri) at System.Windows.Application.LoadComponent(Uri resourceLocator, Boolean bSkipJournaledProperties) at System.Windows.Application.LoadComponent(Uri resourceLocator) The application works fine on a single thread and even on two or three. When I get up past 5 then I get the error every time. Am I doing something wrong? What can I do to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Background thread in C#

    - by Xodarap
    When the user saves some data, I want to spin off a background thread to update my indexes and do some other random stuff. Even if there is an error in this indexing the user can't do anything about it, so there is no point in forcing the main thread to wait until the background thread finishes. I'm doing this from a ASP.NET process, so I think I should be able to do this (as the main thread exiting won't kill the process). When I set a breakpoint in the background thread's method though, the main thread also appears to stop. Is this just an artifact of visual studio's debugger, or is the main thread really not going to return until the background thread stops?

    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

  • Implement a threading to prevent UI block on a bug in an async function

    - by Marcx
    I think I ran up againt a bug in an async function... Precisely the getDirectoryListingAsync() of the File class... This method is supposted to return an object containing the lists of files in a specified folder. I found that calling this method on a direcory with a lot of files (in my tests more than 20k files), after few seconds there is a block on the UI until the process is completed... I think that this method is separated in two main block: 1) get the list of files 2) create the array with the details of the files The point 1 seems to be async (for a few second the ui is responsive), then when the process pass from point 1 to point 2 the block of the UI occurs until the complete event is dispathed... Here's some (simple) code: private function checkFiles(dir:File):void { if (dir.exists) { dir.addEventListener( FileListEvent.DIRECTORY_LISTING, listaImmaginiLocale); dir.getDirectoryListingAsync(); // after this point, for the firsts seconds the UI respond well (point 1), // few seconds later (point 2) the UI is frozen } } private function listaImmaginiLocale( event:FileListEvent ):void { // from this point on the UI is responsive again... } Actually in my projects there are some function that perform an heavy cpu usage and to prevent the UI block I implemented a simple function that after some iteration will wait giving time to UI to be refreshed. private var maxIteration:int = 150000; private function sampleFunct(offset:int = 0) :void { if (offset < maxIteration) { // do something // call the recursive function using a timeout.. // if the offset in multiple by 1000 the function will wait 15 millisec, // otherwise it will be called immediately // 1000 is a random number for the pourpose of this example, but I usually change the // value based on how much heavy is the function itself... setTimeout(function():void{aaa(++offset);}, (offset%1000?15:0)); } } Using this method I got a good responsive UI without afflicting performance... I'd like to implement it into the getDirectoryListingAsync method but I don't know if it's possibile how can I do it where is the file to edit or extend.. Any suggestion???

    Read the article

  • Boost threading/mutexs, why does this work?

    - by Flamewires
    Code: #include <iostream> #include "stdafx.h" #include <boost/thread.hpp> #include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp> using namespace std; boost::mutex mut; double results[10]; void doubler(int x) { //boost::mutex::scoped_lock lck(mut); results[x] = x*2; } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { boost::thread_group thds; for (int x = 10; x>0; x--) { boost::thread *Thread = new boost::thread(&doubler, x); thds.add_thread(Thread); } thds.join_all(); for (int x = 0; x<10; x++) { cout << results[x] << endl; } return 0; } Output: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Press any key to continue . . . So...my question is why does this work(as far as i can tell, i ran it about 20 times), producing the above output, even with the locking commented out? I thought the general idea was: in each thread: calculate 2*x copy results to CPU register(s) store calculation in correct part of array copy results back to main(shared) memory I would think that under all but perfect conditions this would result in some part of the results array having 0 values. Is it only copying the required double of the array to a cpu register? Or is it just too short of a calculation to get preempted before it writes the result back to ram? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Java, Massive message processing with queue manager (trading)

    - by Ronny
    Hello, I would like to design a simple application (without j2ee and jms) that can process massive amount of messages (like in trading systems) I have created a service that can receive messages and place them in a queue to so that the system won't stuck when overloaded. Then I created a service (QueueService) that wraps the queue and has a pop method that pops out a message from the queue and if there is no messages returns null, this method is marked as "synchronized" for the next step. I have created a class that knows how process the message (MessageHandler) and another class that can "listen" for messages in a new thread (MessageListener). The thread has a "while(true)" and all the time tries to pop a message. If a message was returned, the thread calls the MessageHandler class and when it's done, he will ask for another message. Now, I have configured the application to open 10 MessageListener to allow multi message processing. I have now 10 threads that all time are in a loop. Is that a good design?? Can anyone reference me to some books or sites how to handle such scenario?? Thanks, Ronny

    Read the article

  • Are C++ Reads and Writes of an int atomic

    - by theschmitzer
    I have two threads, one updating an int and one reading it. This value is a statistic where the order of the read and write is irrelevant. My question is, do I need to synchronize access to this multi-byte value anyway? Or, put another way, can part of the write be complete and get interrupted, and then the read happen. For example, think of value = ox0000FFFF increment value to 0x00010000 Is there a time where the value looks like 0x0001FFFF that I should be worried about? Certainly the larger the type, the more possible something like this is I've always synchronized these types of accesses, but was curious what the community thought.

    Read the article

  • How to wait for thread to finish with .NET?

    - by Maxim Z.
    I've never really used threading before in C# where I need to have two threads, as well as the main UI thread. Basically, I have the following. public void StartTheActions() { //Starting thread 1.... Thread t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(action1)); t1.Start(); //Now, I want for the main thread (which is calling StartTheActions() ) to wait for t1 to finish (I have created an event in action1() for this) and then start t2... //HOW DO I DO THIS? Thread t2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(action2)); t2.Start(); } So, essentially, my question is how to have a thread wait for another one to finish. What is the best way to do this? Thanks!

    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

  • Why does System.Threading.Timer callback successfully update UI?

    - by Geo P
    I have several System.Threading.Timers on my form application with callbacks that update the UI...successfully - i.e. without throwing errors. I had built these earlier, before I knew that UI should not be updated on any thread other than the UI thread. Now I am confused as to why it does not throw cross-thread exceptions when I am updating UI on these separate threading.timer threads? I will be changing these callbacks so that the UI updates are invoked on UI thread, but I am curious as to why this works. Edit: My application is a WinForms Application.

    Read the article

  • How can I kill a Perl system call after a timeout?

    - by Fergal
    I've got a Perl script I'm using for running a file processing tool which is started using backticks. The problem is that occasionally the tool hangs and It needs to be killed in order for the rest of the files to be processed. Whats the best way best way to apply a timeout after which the parent script will kill the hung process? At the moment I'm using: foreach $file (@FILES) { $runResult = `mytool $file >> $file.log`; } But when mytool hangs after n seconds I'd like to be able to kill it and continue to the next file.

    Read the article

  • multi-thread access MySQL error

    - by user188916
    I have written a simple multi-threaded C program to access MySQL,it works fine except when i add usleep() or sleep() function in each thread function. i created two pthreads in the main method, int main(){ mysql_library_init(0,NULL,NULL); printf("Hello world!\n"); init_pool(&p,100); pthread_t producer; pthread_t consumer_1; pthread_t consumer_2; pthread_create(&producer,NULL,produce_fun,NULL); pthread_create(&consumer_1,NULL,consume_fun,NULL); pthread_create(&consumer_2,NULL,consume_fun,NULL); mysql_library_end(); } void * produce_fun(void *arg){ pthread_detach(pthread_self()); //procedure while(1){ usleep(500000); printf("producer...\n"); produce(&p,cnt++); } pthread_exit(NULL); } void * consume_fun(void *arg){ pthread_detach(pthread_self()); MYSQL db; MYSQL *ptr_db=mysql_init(&db); mysql_real_connect(); //procedure while(1){ usleep(1000000); printf("consumer..."); int item=consume(&p); addRecord_d(ptr_db,"test",item); } mysql_thread_end(); pthread_exit(NULL); } void addRecord_d(MYSQL *ptr_db,const char *t_name,int item){ char query_buffer[100]; sprintf(query_buffer,"insert into %s values(0,%d)",t_name,item); //pthread_mutex_lock(&db_t_lock); int ret=mysql_query(ptr_db,query_buffer); if(ret){ fprintf(stderr,"%s%s\n","cannot add record to ",t_name); return; } unsigned long long update_id=mysql_insert_id(ptr_db); // pthread_mutex_unlock(&db_t_lock); printf("add record (%llu,%d) ok.",update_id,item); } the program output errors like: [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread 0xb7ae3b70 (LWP 7712)] Hello world! [New Thread 0xb72d6b70 (LWP 7713)] [New Thread 0xb6ad5b70 (LWP 7714)] [New Thread 0xb62d4b70 (LWP 7715)] [Thread 0xb7ae3b70 (LWP 7712) exited] producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31441,0) ok.add record (31442,1) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31443,2) ok.add record (31444,3) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31445,4) ok.add record (31446,5) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31447,6) ok.add record (31448,7) ok.producer... Error in my_thread_global_end(): 2 threads didn't exit [Thread 0xb72d6b70 (LWP 7713) exited] [Thread 0xb6ad5b70 (LWP 7714) exited] [Thread 0xb62d4b70 (LWP 7715) exited] Program exited normally. and when i add pthread_mutex_lock in function addRecord_d,the error still exists. So what exactly the problem is?

    Read the article

  • Sleep a thread until an event is attended in another thread from a different class

    - by Afro Genius
    I have an application that fires 2 threads, the 1st launches another class to do some processing which in turn launches a 3rd class to do yet more processing. The 2nd thread in the main class should wait until some event in the 3rd class completes before it performs its job. How can this be achieved? I had tried implementing a wait/notify to share a lock object between the two threads but technically this will not work as I found the hard way. Can I share a lock between classes? Note, an instance of the 3rd class is declared in the 1st class and passed as parameter to the 2nd class. Also I tried creating boolean value in 3rd class that tells when event is complete then poll 2nd thread till this value is true. This worked but is not very desirable. Also is actionListner a better approach to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Why is my code stopping and not returning an exception?

    - by BeckyLou
    I have some code that starts a couple of threads to let them execute, then uses a while loop to check for the current time passing a set timeout period, or for the correct number of results to have been processed (by checking an int on the class object) (with a Thread.Sleep() to wait between loops) Once the while loop is set to exit, it calls Abort() on the threads and should return data to the function that calls the method. When debugging and stepping through the code, I find there can be exceptions in the code running on the separate threads, and in some cases I handle these appropriately, and at other times I don't want to do anything specific. What I have been seeing is that my code goes into the while loop and the thread sleeps, then nothing is returned from my function, either data or an exception. Code execution just stops completely. Any ideas what could be happening? Code sample: System.Threading.Thread sendThread = new System.Threading.Thread(new System.Threading.ThreadStart(Send)); sendThread.Start(); System.Threading.Thread receiveThread = new System.Threading.Thread(new System.Threading.ThreadStart(Receive)); receiveThread.Start(); // timeout Int32 maxSecondsToProcess = this.searchTotalCount * timeout; DateTime timeoutTime = DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(maxSecondsToProcess); Log("Submit() Timeout time: " + timeoutTime.ToString("yyyyMMdd HHmmss")); // while we're still waiting to receive results & haven't hit the timeout, // keep the threads going while (resultInfos.Count < this.searchTotalCount && DateTime.Now < timeoutTime) { Log("Submit() Waiting..."); System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10 * 1000); // 1 minute } Log("Submit() Aborting threads"); // <== this log doesn't show up sendThread.Abort(); receiveThread.Abort(); return new List<ResultInfo>(this.resultInfos.Values);

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >