Search Results

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

Page 50/66 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

  • Threadpool with pasistant worker instances

    - by Matt Smokey-waters Holmes
    So basically what im trying to do is queue up tasks in a thread pool to be executed as soon as a worker becomes free, i have found various examples of this but in all cases the examples have been setup to use a new Worker instance for each job, i want persistent workers. Im trying to make a ftp backup tool, i have it working but because of the limitations of a single connection it is slow. What i ideally want to do is have a single connection for scanning directories and building up a file list then four workers to download said files. Here is an example of my worker /** * FTP Worker */ public class Worker implements Runnable { protected FTPClient _ftp; // Connection details protected String _host = ""; protected String _user = ""; protected String _pass = ""; // worker status protected boolean _working = false; public Worker(String host, String user, String pass) { this._host = host; this._user = user; this._pass = pass; } // Check if the worker is in use public boolean inUse() { return this._working; } @Override public void run() { this._ftp = new FTPClient(); this._connect(); } // Download a file from the ftp server public boolean download(String base, String path, String file) { this._working = true; boolean outcome = true; //create directory if not exists File pathDir = new File(base + path); if (!pathDir.exists()) { pathDir.mkdirs(); } //download file try { OutputStream output = new FileOutputStream(base + path + file); this._ftp.retrieveFile(file, output); output.close(); } catch (Exception e) { outcome = false; } finally { this._working = false; return outcome; } } // Connect to the server protected boolean _connect() { try { this._ftp.connect(this._host); this._ftp.login(this._user, this._pass); } catch (Exception e) { return false; } return this._ftp.isConnected(); } // Disconnect from the server protected void _disconnect() { try { this._ftp.disconnect(); } catch (Exception e) { /* do nothing */ } } } and basically i want to be able to call Worker.download(...) for each task in a queue whenever a worker becomes available without having to create a new connection to the ftp server for each download Any help would be appreciated as iv'e never used threads before and I'm going round in circles at the moment

    Read the article

  • Swing: How do I run a job from AWT thread, but after a window was layed out?

    - by java.is.for.desktop
    My complete GUI runs inside the AWT thread, because I start the main window using SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(...). Now I have a JDialog which has just to display a JLabel, which indicates that a certain job is in progress, and close that dialog after the job was finished. The problem is: the label is not displayed. That job seems to be started before JDialog was fully layed-out. When I just let the dialog open without waiting for a job and closing, the label is displayed. The last thing the dialog does in its ctor is setVisible(true). Things such as revalidate(), repaint(), ... don't help either. Even when I start a thread for the monitored job, and wait for it using someThread.join() it doesn't help, because the current thread (which is the AWT thread) is blocked by join, I guess. Replacing JDialog with JFrame doesn't help either. So, is the concept wrong in general? Or can I manage it to do certain job after it is ensured that a JDialog (or JFrame) is fully layed-out? Simplified algorithm of what I'm trying to achieve: Create a subclass of JDialog Ensure that it and its contents are fully layed-out Start a process and wait for it to finish (threaded or not, doesn't matter) Close the dialog I managed to write a reproducible test case: EDIT Problem from an answer is now addressed: This use case does display the label, but it fails to close after the "simulated process", because of dialog's modality. import java.awt.*; import javax.swing.*; public class _DialogTest2 { public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(new Runnable() { final JLabel jLabel = new JLabel("Please wait..."); @Override public void run() { JFrame myFrame = new JFrame("Main frame"); myFrame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); myFrame.setSize(750, 500); myFrame.setLocationRelativeTo(null); myFrame.setVisible(true); JDialog d = new JDialog(myFrame, "I'm waiting"); d.setModalityType(Dialog.ModalityType.APPLICATION_MODAL); d.add(jLabel); d.setSize(300, 200); d.setLocationRelativeTo(null); d.setVisible(true); SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { try { Thread.sleep(3000); // simulate process jLabel.setText("Done"); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { } } }); d.setVisible(false); d.dispose(); myFrame.setVisible(false); myFrame.dispose(); } }); } }

    Read the article

  • Windows App. Thread Aborting Issue

    - by Patrick
    I'm working on an application that has to make specific decisions based on files that are placed into a folder being watched by a file watcher. Part of this decision making process involves renaming files before moving them off to another folder to be processed. Since I'm working with files of all different sizes I created an object that checks the file in a seperate thread to verify that it is "available" and when it is it fires an event. When I run the rename code from inside this available event it works. public void RenameFile_Test() { string psFilePath = @"C:\File1.xlsx"; tgt_File target = new FileObject(psFilePath); target.FileAvailable += new FileEventHandler(OnFileAvailable); target.FileUnAvailable += new FileEventHandler(OnFileUnavailable); } private void OnFileAvailable(object source, FileEventArgs e) { ((FileObject)source).RenameFile(@"C:\File2.xlsx"); } The problem I'm running into is that when the extensions are different from the source file and the rename to file I am making a call to a conversion factory that returns a factory object based on the type of conversion and then converts the file accordingly before doing the rename. When I run that particular piece of code in unit test it works, the factory object is returned, and the conversion happens correctly. But when I run it within the process I get up to the... moExcelApp = new Application(); part of converting an .xls or .xlsx to a .csv and i get a "Thread was being Aborted" error. Any thoughts? Update: There is a bit more information and a bit of map of how the application works currently. Client Application running FSW On File Created event Creates a FileObject passing in the path of the file. On construction the file is validated: if file exists is true then, Thread toAvailableCheck = new Thread(new ThreadStart(AvailableCheck)); toAvailableCheck.Start(); The AvailableCheck Method repeatedly tries to open a streamreader to the file until the reader is either created or the number of attempts times out. If the reader is opened, it fires the FileAvailable event, if not it fires the FileUnAvailable event, passing back itself in the event. The client application is wired to catch those events from inside the Oncreated event of the FSW. the OnFileAvailable method then calls the rename functionality which contains the excel interop call. If the file is being renamed (not converted, extensions stay the same) it does a move to change the name from the old file name to the new, and if its a conversion it runs a conversion factory object which returns the correct type of conversion based on the extensions of the source file and the destination file name. If it is a simple rename it works w/o a problem. If its a conversion (which is the XLS to CSV object that is returned as a part of the factory) the very first thing it does is create a new application object. That is where the application bombs. When i test the factory and conversion/rename process outside of the thread and in its own unit test the process works w/o a problem. Update: I tested the Excel Interop inside a thread by doing this: [TestMethod()] public void ExcelInteropTest() { Thread toExcelInteropThreadTest = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Instantiate_App)); toExcelInteropThreadTest.Start(); } private void Instantiate_App() { Application moExcelApp = new Application(); moExcelApp.Quit(); } And on the line where the application is instatntiated I got the 'A first chance exception of type 'System.Threading.ThreadAbortException' error. So I added; toExcelInteropThreadTest.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.MTA); after the thread instantiation and before the thread start call and still got the same error. I'm getting the notion that I'm going to have to reconsider the design.

    Read the article

  • Faking a Single Address Space

    - by dsimcha
    I have a large scientific computing task that parallelizes very well with SMP, but at too fine grained a level to be easily parallelized via explicit message passing. I'd like to parallelize it across address spaces and physical machines. Is it feasible to create a scheduler that would parallelize already multithreaded code across multiple physical computers under the following conditions: The code is already multithreaded and can scale pretty well on SMP configurations. The fact that not all of the threads are running in the same address space or on the same physical machine must be transparent to the program, even if this comes at a significant performance penalty in some use cases. You may assume that all of the physical machines involved are running operating systems and CPU architectures that are binary compatible. Things like locks and atomic operations may be slow (having network latency to deal with and all) but must "just work".

    Read the article

  • Persistance Queue Implementation

    - by Winter
    I was reading an article on Batch Processing in java over at JDJ http://java.sys-con.com/node/415321 . The article mentioned using a persistence queue as a Batch Updater instead of immediately sending an individual insert or update to the database. The author doesn't give a concrete example of this concept so I googled Persistence Queue but that didn't come up with much. Does anyone know of a good example of this?

    Read the article

  • Why is my BeginInvoke method not async?

    - by Petr
    Hi, In order to avoid freezing of GUI, I wanted to run method connecting to DB asynchronously. Therefore I have written this: DelegatLoginu dl = ConnectDB; IAsyncResult ar=dl.BeginInvoke(null, null); bool result = (bool)dl.EndInvoke(ar); But it is still freezing and I do not understand why - I though BeginInvoke assures that method it references is run in another thread. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Registering an event from different thread

    - by ET
    Hi, I have a question regarding events in c#. Lets say I have an object obj1 of a class that exposes an event, and this object is running on thread t1. Now on different thread t2, there is another object called obj2 that is registered for the event of obj1. Is it promised that obj2 will get the event when it will be raised? thanks.

    Read the article

  • What are common uses of condition variables in C++?

    - by jasonline
    I'm trying to learn about condition variables. I would like to know what are the common situations where condition variables are used. One example is in a blocking queue, where two threads access the queue - the producer thread pushes an item into the queue, while the consumer thread pops an item from the queue. If the queue is empty, the consumer thread is waiting until a signal is sent by the producer thread. What are other design situations where you need a condition variable to be used?

    Read the article

  • Is this use of PreparedStatements in a Thread in JAVA correct?

    - by Gormcito
    I'm still an undergrad just working part time and so I'm always trying to be aware of better ways to do things. Recently I had to write a program for work where the main thread of the program would spawn "task" threads (for each db "task" record) which would perform some operations and then update the record to say that it has finished. Therefore I needed a database connection object and PreparedStatement objects in or available to the ThreadedTask objects. This is roughly what I ended up writing, is creating a PreparedStatement object per thread a waste? I thought static PreparedStatments could create race conditions... Thread A stmt.setInt(); Thread B stmt.setInt(); Thread A stmt.execute(); Thread B stmt.execute(); A´s version never gets execed.. Is this thread safe? Is creating and destroying PreparedStatement objects that are always the same not a huge waste? public class ThreadedTask implements runnable { private final PreparedStatement taskCompleteStmt; public ThreadedTask() { //... taskCompleteStmt = Main.db.prepareStatement(...); } public run() { //... taskCompleteStmt.executeUpdate(); } } public class Main { public static final db = DriverManager.getConnection(...); }

    Read the article

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • C++ boost thread reusing threads

    - by aaa
    hi. I am trying to accomplish something like this: thread t; // create/initialize thread t.launch(); // launch thread. t.wait(); // wait t.launch(); // relaunch the same thread How to go about implementing something like this using boost threads? in essence, I need persistent relaunch-able thread. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Not Able to call The method Asynchronously in the Unit Test.

    - by user43838
    Hi everyone, I am trying to call a method that passes an object called parameters. public void LoadingDataLockFunctionalityTest() { DataCache_Accessor target = DataCacheTest.getNewDataCacheInstance(); target.itemsLoading.Add("WebFx.Caching.TestDataRetrieverFactorytestsync", true); DataParameters parameters = new DataParameters("WebFx.Core", "WebFx.Caching.TestDataRetrieverFactory", "testsync"); parameters.CachingStrategy = CachingStrategy.TimerDontWait; parameters.CacheDuration = 0; string data = (string)target.performGetForTimerDontWaitStrategy(parameters); TestSyncDataRetriever.SimulateLoadingForFiveSeconds = true; Thread t1 = new Thread(delegate() { string s = (string)target.performGetForTimerDontWaitStrategy(parameters); Console.WriteLine(s ?? String.Empty); }); t1.Start(); t1.Join(); Thread.Sleep(1000); ReaderWriterLockSlim rw = DataCache_Accessor.GetLoadingLock(parameters); Assert.IsTrue(rw.IsWriteLockHeld); Assert.IsNotNull(data); } My test is failing all the time and i am not able step through the method.. Can someone please put me in the right direction Thanks

    Read the article

  • Form.Show() is not showing it's child controls

    - by Refracted Paladin
    I have a form, frmPleaseWait, that has a MarqueeProgressBar and a Label that I want to use when the UI is loading the data in a poorly structured app we have. The problem is that frmPleaseWait.Show() shows the form but not the controls in it. It is just a white rectangle. Now frmPleaseWait.ShowDialog() shows the child controls but doesn't let the UI load it's data. What am I missing? Below is a code snippet from where I am trying this. PleaseWait = new frmPleaseWait(); PleaseWait.Show(this); // Set all available HUD values in HUD Object HUD.LastName = GetCurrentRowVal("LastName").Trim(); HUD.FirstName = GetCurrentRowVal("FirstName").Trim(); HUD.PersonId = Convert.ToInt32(GetCurrentRowVal("PersonID").Trim()); HUD.SSn = GetCurrentRowVal("SSN").Trim(); HUD.MiddleName = GetCurrentRowVal("MiddleName").Trim(); HUD.MasterID = ConnectBLL.BLL.DriInterface.CheckForDriId(HUD.PersonId).ToString(); // This loads numerous UserControls with data shellForm.FormPaint(HUD.PersonId); PleaseWait.Close();

    Read the article

  • Python Terminated Thread Cannot Restart

    - by Mel Kaye
    Hello, I have a thread that gets executed when some action occurs. Given the logic of the program, the thread cannot possibly be started while another instance of it is still running. Yet when I call it a second time, I get a "RuntimeError: thread already started" error. I added a check to see if it is actually alive using the Thread.is_alive() function, and it is actually dead. What am I doing wrong? I can provide more details as are needed.

    Read the article

  • WPF: issue updating UI from background thread

    - by Ted Shaffer
    My code launches a background thread. The background thread makes changes and wants the UI in the main thread to update. The code that launches the thread then waits looks something like: Thread fThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(PerformSync)); fThread.IsBackground = true; fThread.Start(); fThread.Join(); MessageBox.Show("Synchronization complete"); When the background wants to update the UI, it sets a StatusMessage and calls the code below: static StatusMessage _statusMessage; public delegate void AddStatusDelegate(); private void AddStatus() { AddStatusDelegate methodForUIThread = delegate { _statusMessageList.Add(_statusMessage); }; this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(methodForUIThread, System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherPriority.Send); } _statusMessageList is an ObservableCollection that is the source for a ListBox. The AddStatus method is called but the code on the main thread never executes - that is, _statusMessage is not added to _statusMessageList while the thread is executing. However, once it is complete (fThread.Join() returns), all the stacked up calls on the main thread are executed. But, if I display a message box between the calls to fThread.Start() and fThread.Join(), then the status messages are updated properly. What do I need to change so that the code in the main thread executes (UI updates) while waiting for the thread to terminate? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Can I safely bind to data on multi-threaded applications?

    - by Paul
    Hi everyone, I'm trying to solve a classic problem - I have a multi-threaded application which runs some processor-intensive calculations, with a GUI interface. Every time one of the threads has completed a task, I'd like to update a status on a table taskID | status I use DataGridView and BindingList in the following way: BindingList<Task> tasks; dataGridView.DataSource = tasks public class Task : INotifyPropertyChanged { ID{get;} Status{get;set;} } Can a background thread safely update a task's status? and changes will be seen in the correct order in the GUI? Second Question: When do I need to call to PropertyChanged? I tried running with and without the call, didn't seem to bother.. Third Question: I've seen on MSDN that dataGridView uses BindingSource as a mediator between DataGridView.DataSource and BindingList Is this really necessary?

    Read the article

  • .NET: Start a thread as suspended

    - by Ikaso
    In unmanaged code you can create a thread in suspended state. In .NET Framework I can't find this option. Is it because the Thread constructor puts the thread in a suspended state? Is there other reasons why this is not supported?

    Read the article

  • ConcurrenctBag(Of MyType) Vs List(Of MyType)

    - by Ben
    What is the advantage of using a ConcurrentBag(Of MyType) against just using a List(Of MyType)? The MSDN page on the CB (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd381779(v=VS.100).aspx) states that ConcurrentBag(Of T) is a thread-safe bag implementation, optimized for scenarios where the same thread will be both producing and consuming data stored in the bag So what is the advantage? I can understand the advantage of the other collection types in the Concurrency namespace, but this one puzzled me. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • throwing exception from APCProc crashes program

    - by lazy_banana
    I started to do some research on how terminate a multithreaded application properly and I found those 2 post(first, second) about how to use QueueUserAPC to signal other threads to terminate. I thought I should give it a try, and the application keeps crashing when I throw the exception from the APCProc. Code: #include <stdio.h> #include <windows.h> class ExitException { public: char *desc; DWORD exit_code; ExitException(char *desc,int exit_code): desc(desc), exit_code(exit_code) {} }; //I use this class to check if objects are deconstructed upon termination class Test { public: char *s; Test(char *s): s(s) { printf("%s ctor\n",s); } ~Test() { printf("%s dctor\n",s); } }; DWORD CALLBACK ThreadProc(void *useless) { try { Test t("thread_test"); SleepEx(INFINITE,true); return 0; } catch (ExitException &e) { printf("Thread exits\n%s %lu",e.desc,e.exit_code); return e.exit_code; } } void CALLBACK exit_apc_proc(ULONG_PTR param) { puts("In APCProc"); ExitException e("Application exit signal!",1); throw e; return; } int main() { HANDLE thread=CreateThread(NULL,0,ThreadProc,NULL,0,NULL); Sleep(1000); QueueUserAPC(exit_apc_proc,thread,0); WaitForSingleObject(thread,INFINITE); puts("main: bye"); return 0; } My question is why does this happen? I use mingw for compilation and my OS is 64bit. Can this be the reason?I read that you shouldn't call QueueApcProc from a 32bit app for a thread which runs in a 64bit process or vice versa, but this shouldn't be the case.

    Read the article

  • How can I use multi-threading with a "for" or "foreach" loop?

    - by saafh
    I am trying to run the for loop in a separate thread so that the UI should be responsive and the progress bar is visible. The problem is that I don't know how to do that :). In this code, the process starts in a separate thread, but the next part of the code is executed at the same time. The messageBox is displayed and the results are never returned (e.g. the listbox's selected index property is never set). It doesn't work even if I use, "taskEx.delay()". TaskEx.Run(() => { for (int i = 0; i < sResults.Count(); i++) { if (sResults.ElementAt(i).DisplayIndexForSearchListBox.Trim().Contains(ayaStr)) { lstGoto.SelectedIndex = i; lstGoto_SelectionChanged(lstReadingSearchResults, null); IsIndexMatched = true; break; } } }); //TaskEx.delay(1000); if (IsIndexMatched == true) stkPanelGoto.Visibility = Visibility.Collapsed; else //the index didn't match { MessagePrompt.ShowMessage("The test'" + ayaStr + "' does not exist.", "Warning!"); } Could anyone please tell me how can I use multi-threading with a "for" or "foreach" loop?

    Read the article

  • how to call windows paint event from child thread

    - by RAJ K
    If I am wrong then please correct me as I am new in this. I have one thread which display image captured from webcam on a windows created using CreateWindowEx() function. Now when i execute my program I can see that my paint code (in WindowProc()) in never reached (called InvalidateRect() from child thread to redraw), checked using breakpoint. Actually frame capture and display is being done in thread and I think because its in child thread and Window is in Main thread that is why its not able to call paint event. Can you help me on this

    Read the article

  • Best way to reuse a Runnable

    - by Gandalf
    I have a class that implements Runnable and am currently using an Executor as my thread pool to run tasks (indexing documents into Lucene). executor.execute(new LuceneDocIndexer(doc, writer)); My issue is that my Runnable class creates many Lucene Field objects and I would rather reuse them then create new ones every call. What's the best way to reuse these objects (Field objects are not thread safe so I cannot simple make them static) - should I create my own ThreadFactory? I notice that after a while the program starts to degrade drastically and the only thing I can think of is it's GC overhead. I am currently trying to profile the project to be sure this is even an issue - but for now lets just assume it is.

    Read the article

  • passing parameters to a thread

    - by assassin
    I want to pass a function that takes a parameter to the ThreadStart Constructor in C#. But, it seems that this is not possible, as I get a syntax error it I try to do something like this Thread t1 = new Thread(new Thread Start(func1(obj1)); where obj1 is an object of type List<string> (say). If I want a thread to execute this function that takes in an object as a parameter, and I plan to create 2 such threads simultaneously with different parameter values what is the best method to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • Help me find article on Multi-threading and Event Handling in Java

    - by JDR
    I once read an article on how to properly write event handlers for multi-threading in Java, but I can't for the life of me find it anymore. It described the pitfalls and potentials for deadlocks that can occur when firing events (not Swing events mind you, but general events like model update notifications). To clarify, the situation would be as such: // let's say this is code from an MVC model somewhere public void setSomeProperty(String myProperty){ if(!this.myProperty.equals(myProperty)){ this.myProperty = myProperty; fireMyPropertyChangedEvent(...); } } The article described how passing control to arbitrary external listener code was a potential cause for deadlock. I now find myself in a situation where I need to fire such events in a multithreaded environment and I would very much like to read the article again to see what it has to say before I continue. Does anyone know the article I'm referring to? I believe it came as a (fairly short) PDF. It started off with an initial naive implementation and incrementally pointed out flaws and improved upon it. It ended with a sort of final proper-way-to-fire-multithreaded-events. I've searched endlessly in my browse history and on google, but all I could find were endless amounts topics on Swing event dispatch threads. Thank you.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >