Search Results

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

Page 51/66 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • C++ thread to seperate process

    - by silverbandit91
    Is there any way i can have a thread branch off into it's own independent process? I know there's the CreateProcess function but as far as I can tell, you can only run external applications with it. Is what I'm asking for at all possible?

    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

  • Multi-threading concept and lock in c#

    - by Neeraj
    I read about lock, though not understood nothing at all. My question is why do we use a un-used object and lock that and how this makes something thread-safe or how this helps in multi-threading ? Isn't there other way to make thread-safe code. public class test { private object Lock { get; set; } ... lock (this.Lock) { ... } ... } Sorry is my question is very stupid, but i don't understand, although i've used it many times.

    Read the article

  • Solve a maze using multicores?

    - by acidzombie24
    This question is messy, i dont need a working solution, i need some psuedo code. How would i solve this maze? This is a homework question. I have to get from point green to red. At every fork i need to 'spawn a thread' and go that direction. I need to figure out how to get to red but i am unsure how to avoid paths i already have taken (finishing with any path is ok, i am just not allowed to go in circles). Heres an example of my problem, i start by moving down and i see a fork so one goes right and one goes down (or this thread can take it, it doesnt matter). Now lets ignore the rest of the forks and say the one going right hits the wall, goes down, hits the wall and goes left, then goes up. The other thread goes down, hits the wall then goes all the way right. The bottom path has been taken twice, by starting at different sides. How do i mark this path has been taken? Do i need a lock? Is this the only way? Is there a lockless solution? Implementation wise i was thinking i could have the maze something like this. I dont like the solution because there is a LOT of locking (assuming i lock before each read and write of the haveTraverse member). I dont need to use the MazeSegment class below, i just wrote it up as an example. I am allowed to construct the maze however i want. I was thinking maybe the solution requires no connecting paths and thats hassling me. Maybe i could split the map up instead of using the format below (which is easy to read and understand). But if i knew how to split it up i would know how to walk it thus the problem. How do i walk this maze efficiently? The only hint i receive was dont try to conserve memory by reusing it, make copies. However that was related to a problem with ordering a list and i dont think the hint was a hint for this. class MazeSegment { enum Direction { up, down, left, right} List<Pair<Direction, MazeSegment*>> ConnectingPaths; int line_length; bool haveTraverse; } MazeSegment root; class MazeSegment { enum Direction { up, down, left, right} List<Pair<Direction, MazeSegment*>> ConnectingPaths; bool haveTraverse; } void WalkPath(MazeSegment segment) { if(segment.haveTraverse) return; segment.haveTraverse = true; foreach(var v in segment) { if(v.haveTraverse == false) spawn_thread(v); } } WalkPath(root);

    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

  • How to terminate a managed thread blocked in unmanaged code?

    - by James Curran
    I have a managed thread which is waiting, blocked, in an unmanaged code (specifically, it on a call to NamedPipeServerStream.WaitForConnection() which ultimitely calls into unmanaged code, and does not offer a timeout). I want to shut the thread down neatly. Thread.Abort() has no effect until the code returns to the managed realm, which it won't do until a client makes a connection, which we can't wait for). I need a way "shock" it out of the unmanaged code; or a way to just kill the thread even while it's in unmanaged land.

    Read the article

  • Understanding java's native threads and the jvm

    - by Moev4
    I understand that the jvm is itself an application that turns the bytecode of the java executable into native machine code, but when using native threads I have some questions that I just cannot seem to answer. Does every thread create their own instance of the jvm to handle their particular execution? If not then does the jvm have to have some way to schedule which thread it will handle next, if so wouldn't this render the multi-threaded nature of java useless since only one thread can be ran at a time?

    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

  • Help regarding multi-threading in MFC,please help me firends!

    - by kiddo
    Hello all,in my application there is a small part of function,in which it will read files to get some information,the number of filecount would be utleast 50,So I thought of implementing threading.Say if the user is giving 50 files,I wanted to separate it as 5 *10, 5 thread should be created,so that each thread can handle 10 files which can speed up the process.And also from the below code you can see that some variables are common.I read some articles about threading and I am aware that only one thread should access a variable/contorl at a me(CCriticalStiuation can be used for that).For me as a beginner,I am finding hard to imlplement what I have learned about threading.Somebody please give me some idea with code shown below..thanks in advance file read function:// void CMyClass::GetWorkFilesInfo(CStringArray& dataFilesArray,CString* dataFilesB, int* check,DWORD noOfFiles,LPWSTR path) { CString cFilePath; int cIndex =0; int exceptionInd = 0; wchar_t** filesForWork = new wchar_t*[noOfFiles]; int tempCheck; int localIndex =0; for(int index = 0;index < noOfFiles; index++) { tempCheck = *(check + index); if(tempCheck == NOCHECKBOX) { *(filesForWork+cIndex) = new TCHAR[MAX_PATH]; wcscpy(*(filesForWork+cIndex),*(dataFilesB +index)); cIndex++; } else//CHECKED or UNCHECKED { dataFilesArray.Add(*(dataFilesB+index)); *(check + localIndex) = *(check + index); localIndex++; } } WorkFiles(&cFilePath,dataFilesArray,filesForWork, path, cIndex); dataFilesArray.Add(cFilePath); *(check + localIndex) = CHECKED; }

    Read the article

  • Works on debug but not release

    - by user146780
    I have a thread that sets a value to true when it is done. Until then I wait: while(1) { if(done[0] == true) { break; } } This code works just fine in Debug but in Release it stays in the loop forever even though the debugger clearly says that it is true and not false. Why would this not work? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Will lock() statement block all threads in the proccess/appdomain?

    - by MikeJ
    Maybe the question sounds silly, but I don't understand 'something about threads and locking and I would like to get a confirmation (here's why I ask). So, if I have 10 servers and 10 request in the same time come to each server, that's 100 request across the farm. Without locking, thats 100 request to the database. If I do something like this: private static readonly object myLockHolder = new object(); if (Cache[key] == null) { lock(myLockHolder) { if (Cache[key] == null) { Cache[key] = LengthyDatabaseCall(); } } } How many database requests will I do? 10? 100? Or as much as I have threads?

    Read the article

  • What are all the concurrent things [data structure, algorithm, locking mechanism] missing in .Net 3.

    - by user49767
    First time I am bit disappointed in StackOverflow cause my http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2571727/c-concurrency-vs-java-concurrency-which-is-neatly-designed-which-is-better question was closed. My intension was just trying to gather knowledge from programming guru's who worked in both the programming technologies. Rather closing this question, please help me by discussing what is good, bad, and ugly in multi-threading part in both the platforms. It is also welcome, if someone would like to compare with .Net 4.0 with JDK 6 (or JDK 7)

    Read the article

  • C# WinForms populating TreeView from List<myObj>

    - by user743354
    I have this structure of classes: public class L3Message { public int Number { get; set; } public string MessageName { get; set; } public string Device { get; set; } public string Time { get; set; } public string ScramblingCode { get; set; } public List<Parameter> Parameters { get; set; } public L3Message() { Parameters = new List<Parameter>(); } } public class Parameter { public int numOfWhitespaces { get; set; } public string ParameterName { get; set; } public string ParameterValue { get; set; } public Parameter Parent { get; set; } public List<Parameter> SubParameters { get; set; } public Parameter() { SubParameters = new List<Parameter>(); } } So, as return type from one of my Methods I have List of L3Messages (List < L3Message ), and I need to map that to TreeView in WinForms (populate TreeView from that List). If possible, I would like to that in separate thread. How can I achieve that?

    Read the article

  • Multiple instances of the same Async task (Windows Phone)

    - by Bart Teunissen
    After googeling for ages, and reading some stuff about async task in books. I made a my first program with an async task in it. Only to find out, that i can only start one task. I want to run the task more then once. This is where i found out that that doesn't seem to work. to be a little bit clearer, here are some parts of my code: InitFunction(var); This is the Task itself public async Task InitFunction(string var) { _VarHandle = await _AdsClient.GetSymhandleByNameAsync(var); _Data = await _AdsClient.ReadAsync<T>(_VarHandle); _AdsClient.AddNotificationAsync<T>(_VarHandle, AdsTransmissionMode.OnChange, 1000, this); } This works like a charm when i execute the task only once.. But is there a possibility to run it multiple times. Something like this? InitFunction(var1); InitFunction(var2); InitFunction(var3); Because if i do this now (multiple tasks at once), the task it wants to start is still running, and it throws an exeption. if someone could help me with this, that would be awesome! ~ Bart

    Read the article

  • VB.net SyncLock Object

    - by Budius
    I always seen on SyncLock examples people using Private Lock1 As New Object ' declaration SyncLock Lock1 ' usage but why? In my specific case I'm locking a Queue to avoid problems on mult-threading Enqueueing and Dequeueing my data. Can I lock the Queue object itself, like this? Private cmdQueue As New Queue(Of QueueItem) ' declaration SyncLock cmdQueue ' usage Any help appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What would happen if a same file being read and appended at the same time(python programming)?

    - by Shane
    I'm writing a script using two separate thread one doing file reading operation and the other doing appending, both threads run fairly frequently. My question is, if one thread happens to read the file while the other is just in the middle of appending strings such as "This is a test" into this file, what would happen? I know if you are appending a smaller-than-buffer string, no matter how frequently you read the file in other threads, there would never be incomplete line such as "This i" appearing in your read file, I mean the os would either do: append "This is a test" - read info from the file; or: read info from the file - append "This is a test" to the file; and such would never happen: append "This i" - read info from the file - append "s a test". But if "This is a test" is big enough(assuming it's a bigger-than-buffer string), the os can't do appending job in one operation, so the appending job would be divided into two: first append "This i" to the file, then append "s a test", so in this kind of situation if I happen to read the file in the middle of the whole appending operation, would I get such result: append "This i" - read info from the file - append "s a test", which means I might read a file that includes an incomplete string?

    Read the article

  • Does thread pool size keep growing for scheduledthreadpoolexecutor?

    - by Sourajit Basak
    Imagine a situation where tasks are being added to scheduledthreadpoolexecutor. Each of these tasks will keep on running at different periodic intervals. Although all such tasks will not be running at the same time because each is set at different intervals, there may be a situation where a high number of threads are competing for execution. Is there any restriction on total number of threads ? It seems there is a restriction on the total number of idle threads. And does this concept of idle thread imply that long running tasks (thread) may be destroyed and recreated when needed ?

    Read the article

  • BlackBerry threading model

    - by Rory Fitzpatrick
    I've read a lot of comments mention in passing that the BlackBerry threading model deviates from the Java standard and can cause issues, but no amount of googling has enlightened me on what this means exactly. I've been developing a fairly large business application for the BlackBerry and, although I don't really have any previous experience with Java multi-threaded applications, haven't come across any issue that we've been able to blame on threading, other than what we caused ourselves. Can someone describe exactly how the BlackBerry threading model is different, and how I as a developer should take that into account? Obviously any links on the topic would also be great.

    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 | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >