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 >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Progressbar behaves strangely

    - by wanderameise
    I just created an application in C# that uses a thread which polls the UART for a receive event. If data is received an event is triggered in my main thread (GUI) and a progress bar is controlled via PerformStep() method (of course, I previously set the Max value accordingly). PerformStep is invoked using the following expression to handle cross threading this.Invoke((Action)delegate{progressBar2.PerformStep();}) When running this application the progressbar never hits its final value. It stops at 80%. When debugging and stopping at the line mentioned above, everything works fine using single steps. I have no idea what is going one! Start read thread on main thread: pThreadWrite = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ReadThread)); pThreadWrite.Start(); Read Thread: private void ReadThread() { while(1) { if (ReceiveEvent) { FlashProgressBar(); } } } Event that is triggered in main thread: private void FlashProgressBar() { this.Invoke((Action)delegate { progressBar2.PerformStep();}); } (It's a simplified representation of my code) It seems as if the internal progress is faster than the visual one.

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Java Thread execution on same data

    - by AR89
    first of all here is the code, you can just copy an paste import java.util.ArrayList; public class RepetionCounter implements Runnable{ private int x; private int y; private int[][] matrix; private int xCounter; private int yCounter; private ArrayList<Thread> threadArray; private int rowIndex; private boolean[] countCompleted; public RepetionCounter(int x, int y, int [][]matrix) { this.x = x; this.y = y; this.matrix = matrix; this.threadArray = new ArrayList<Thread>(matrix.length); this.rowIndex = 0; for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++){ threadArray.add(new Thread(this)); } countCompleted = new boolean[matrix.length]; } public void start(){ for (int i = 0; i < threadArray.size(); i++){ threadArray.get(i).start(); this.rowIndex++; } } public void count(int rowIndex) { for(int i = 0; i < matrix[rowIndex].length; i++){ if (matrix[rowIndex][i] == x){ this.xCounter++; } else if (matrix[rowIndex][i] == y){ this.yCounter++; } } } @Override public void run() { count(this.rowIndex); countCompleted[this.rowIndex] = true; } public int getxCounter() { return xCounter; } public void setxCounter(int xCounter) { this.xCounter = xCounter; } public int getyCounter() { return yCounter; } public void setyCounter(int yCounter) { this.yCounter = yCounter; } public boolean[] getCountCompleted() { return countCompleted; } public void setCountCompleted(boolean[] countCompleted) { this.countCompleted = countCompleted; } public static void main(String args[]){ int[][] matrix = {{0,2,1}, {2,3,4}, {3,2,0}}; RepetionCounter rc = new RepetionCounter(0, 2, matrix); rc.start(); boolean ready = false; while(!ready){ for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++){ if (rc.getCountCompleted()[i]){ ready = true; } else { ready = false; } } } if (rc.getxCounter() > rc.getyCounter()){ System.out.println("Thre are more x than y"); } else {System.out.println("There are:"+rc.getxCounter()+" x and:"+rc.getyCounter()+" y"); } } } What I want this code to do: I give to the object a matrix and tow numbers, and I want to know how much times these two numbers occurs in the matrix. I create as many thread as the number of rows of the matrix (that' why there is that ArrayList), so in this object I have k threads (supposing k is the number of rows), each of them count the occurrences of the two numbers. The problem is: if I run it for the first time everything work, but if I try to execute it another time I get and IndexOutOfBoundException, or a bad count of the occurrences, the odd thing is that if I get the error, and modify the code, after that it will works again just for once. Can you explain to me why is this happening?

    Read the article

  • Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable

    - by kaiwii ho
    Here is the whole code : import java.util.ArrayList; public class Test{ ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>arraylist=new ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>(){ @Override protected ArrayList<E> initialValue() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub //return super.initialValue(); ArrayList<E>arraylist=new ArrayList<E>(); for(int i=0;i<=20;i++) arraylist.add((E) new Integer(i)); return arraylist; } }; class MyRunnable implements Runnable{ private Test mytest; public MyRunnable(Test test){ mytest=test; // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } @Override public void run() { System.out.println("before"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); ArrayList<E>myarraylist=(ArrayList<E>) mytest.arraylist.get(); myarraylist.add((E) new Double(Math.random())); mytest.arraylist.set(myarraylist); System.out.println("after"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); } // TODO Auto-generated method stub } public static void main(String[] args){ Test test=new Test<Double>(); System.out.println(test.arraylist.toString()); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); System.out.println(arraylist.toString()); } } my questions are: 1\ why the new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); cause the error: Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable ? 2\ what is the static reference refer to right here? thx in advanced

    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

  • Periodically iterating over a collection that's constantly changing

    - by rwmnau
    I have a collection of objects that's constantly changing, and I want to display some information about objects (my application is multi-threaded, and differently threads are constantly submitting requests to modify an object in the collection, so it's unpredictable), and I want to display some information about what's currently in the collection. If I lock the collection, I can iterate over it and get my information without any problems - however, this causes problems with the other threads, since they could have submitted multiple requests to modify the collection in the meantime, and will be stalled. I've thought of a couple ways around this, and I'm looking for any advice. Make a copy of the collection and iterate over it, allowing the original to continue updating in the background. The collection can get large, so this isn't ideal, but it's safe. Iterate over it using a For...Next loop, and catch an IndexOutOfBounds exception if an item is removed from the collection while we're iterating. This may occasionally cause duplicates to appear in my snapshot, so it's not ideal either. Any other ideas? I'm only concerned about a moment-in-time snapshot, so I'm not concerned about reflecting changes in my application - my main concern is that the collection be able to be updated with minimal latency, and that updates never be lost.

    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

  • 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

  • How to keep a .NET console app running?

    - by intoorbit
    Consider a Console application that starts up some services in a separate thread. All it needs to do is wait for the user to press Ctrl+C to shut it down. Which of the following is the better way to do this? static ManualResetEvent _quitEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false); static void Main() { Console.CancelKeyPress += delegate { _quitEvent.Set(); }; // kick off asynchronous stuff _quitEvent.WaitOne(); // cleanup/shutdown and quit } Or this, using Thread.Sleep(1): static bool _quitFlag = false; static void Main() { Console.CancelKeyPress += delegate { _quitFlag = true; }; // kick off asynchronous stuff while (!_quitFlag) { Thread.Sleep(1); } // cleanup/shutdown and quit }

    Read the article

  • What to use to wait on a indeterminate number of tasks?

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I am still fairly new to parallel computing so I am not too sure which tool to use for the job. I have a System.Threading.Tasks.Task that needs to wait for n number number of tasks to finish before starting. The tricky part is some of its dependencies may start after this task starts (You are guaranteed to never hit 0 dependent tasks until they are all done). Here is kind of what is happening Parent thread creates somewhere between 1 and (NUMBER_OF_CPU_CORES - 1) tasks. Parent thread creates task to be run when all of the worker tasks are finished. Parent thread creates a monitoring thread Monitoring thread may kill a worker task or spawn a new task depending on load. I can figure out everything up to step 4. How do I get the task from step 2 to wait to run until any new worker threads created in step 4 finish?

    Read the article

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