Search Results

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

Page 54/66 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • How to debug ConcurrentModificationException?

    - by Dani
    I encountered ConcurrentModificationException and by looking at it I can't see the reason why it's happening; the area throwing the exception and all the places modifying the collection are surrounded by synchronized (this.locks.get(id)) { ... } // locks is a HashMap<String, Object>; I tried to catch the the pesky thread but all I could nail (by setting a breakpoint in the exception) is that the throwing thread owns the monitor while the other thread (there are two threads in the program) sleeps. How should I proceed? What do you usually do when you encounter similar threading issues?

    Read the article

  • How does lock(syncRoot) make sense on a static method?

    - by Rising Star
    The following code is excerpted from the (Windows Identity Foundation SDK) template that MS uses to create a new Security Token Service Web Site. public static CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration Current { get { HttpApplicationState httpAppState = HttpContext.Current.Application; CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration customConfiguration = httpAppState.Get( CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfigurationKey ) as CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration; if ( customConfiguration == null ) { lock ( syncRoot ) { customConfiguration = httpAppState.Get( CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfigurationKey ) as CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration; if ( customConfiguration == null ) { customConfiguration = new CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration(); httpAppState.Add( CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfigurationKey, customConfiguration ); } } } return customConfiguration; } } I'm relatively new to multi-threaded programming. I assume that the reason for the lock statement is to make this code thread-safe in the event that two web requests arrive at the web site at the same time. However, I would have thought that using lock (syncRoot) would not make sense because syncRoot refers to the current instance that this method is operating on... but this is a static method? How does this make sense?

    Read the article

  • Parent Thread exiting before Child Threads [python]

    - by crgwbr
    I'm using Python in a webapp (CGI for testing, FastCGI for production) that needs to send an occasional email (when a user registers or something else important happens). Since communicating with an SMTP server takes a long time, I'd like to spawn a thread for the mail function so that the rest of the app can finish up the request without waiting for the email to finish sending. I tried using thread.start_new(func, (args)), but the Parent return's and exits before the sending is complete, thereby killing the sending process before it does anything useful. Is there anyway to keep the process alive long enough for the child process to finish?

    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

  • Threading across multiple files

    - by Zach M.
    My program is reading in files and using thread to compute the highest prime number, when I put a print statement into the getNum() function my numbers are printing out. However, it seems to just lag no matter how many threads I input. Each file has 1 million integers in it. Does anyone see something apparently wrong with my code? Basically the code is giving each thread 1000 integers to check before assigning a new thread. I am still a C noobie and am just learning the ropes of threading. My code is a mess right now because I have been switching things around constantly. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; char **fn; //file name variable int numberOfThreads; int *highestPrime = NULL; int fileArrayNum = 0; int loop = 0; int currentFile = 0; sem_t semAccess; sem_t semAssign; int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); } int getNum(FILE* file) { int number; char* tempS = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempS, 20, file); tempS[strlen(tempS)-1] = '\0'; number = atoi(tempS); free(tempS);//free memory for later call return(number); } void* findPrimality(void *threadnum) //main thread function to find primes { int tNum = (int)threadnum; int checkNum; char *inUseFile = NULL; int x=1; FILE* file; while(currentFile < 10){ if(inUseFile == NULL){//inUseFIle being used to check if a file is still being read sem_wait(&semAccess);//critical section inUseFile = fn[currentFile]; sem_post(&semAssign); file = fopen(inUseFile, "r"); while(!feof(file)){ if(x % 1000 == 0 && tNum !=1){ //go for 1000 integers and then wait sem_wait(&semAssign); } checkNum = getNum(file); /* * * * * I think the issue is here * * * */ if(checkNum > highestPrime[tNum]){ if(prime(checkNum)){ highestPrime[tNum] = checkNum; } } x++; } fclose(file); inUseFile = NULL; } currentFile++; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many ARGS\n"); return(-1); } else{//Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fn = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fn[0] = file1; fn[1] = file2; fn[2] = file3; fn[3] = file4; fn[4] = file5; fn[5] = file6; fn[6] = file7; fn[7] = file8; fn[8] = file9; fn[9] = file10; sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); highestPrime = malloc(numberOfThreads * sizeof(int)); //create an array to store each threads highest number for(loop = 0; loop < numberOfThreads; loop++){//set initial values to 0 highestPrime[loop] = 0; } pthread_t calculationThread[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the work preTime = time(NULL); //start the clock for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_create(&calculationThread[i], NULL, findPrimality, (void *)i); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_join(calculationThread[i], NULL); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ printf("this is a prime number: %d \n", highestPrime[i]); } postTime= time(NULL); printf("Wall time: %ld seconds\n", (long)(postTime - preTime)); } } Yes I am trying to find the highest number over all. So I have made some head way the last few hours, rescucturing the program as spudd said, currently I am getting a segmentation fault due to my use of structures, I am trying to save the largest individual primes in the struct while giving them the right indices. This is the revised code. So in short what the first thread is doing is creating all the threads and giving them access points to a very large integer array which they will go through and find prime numbers, I want to implement semaphores around the while loop so that while they are executing every 2000 lines or the end they update a global prime number. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; int numberOfThreads; int entries[10000000]; int entryIndex = 0; int fileCount = 0; char** fileName; int largestPrimeNumber = 0; //Register functions int prime(int n); int getNum(FILE* file); void* findPrimality(void *threadNum); void* assign(void *num); typedef struct package{ int largestPrime; int startingIndex; int numberCount; }pack; //Beging main code block int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many threads!!\n"); return(-1); } else{ //Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } int threadPointer[numberOfThreads]; //Pointer array to point to entries time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fileName = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fileName[0] = file1; fileName[1] = file2; fileName[2] = file3; fileName[3] = file4; fileName[4] = file5; fileName[5] = file6; fileName[6] = file7; fileName[7] = file8; fileName[8] = file9; fileName[9] = file10; FILE* filereader; int currentNum; for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){ filereader = fopen(fileName[i], "r"); while(!feof(filereader)){ char* tempString = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempString, 20, filereader); tempString[strlen(tempString)-1] = '\0'; entries[entryIndex] = atoi(tempString); entryIndex++; free(tempString); } } //sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores //sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); time_t tPre, tPost; pthread_t coordinate; tPre = time(NULL); pthread_create(&coordinate, NULL, assign, (void**)numberOfThreads); pthread_join(coordinate, NULL); tPost = time(NULL); } } void* findPrime(void* pack_array) { pack* currentPack= pack_array; int lp = currentPack->largestPrime; int si = currentPack->startingIndex; int nc = currentPack->numberCount; int i; int j = 0; for(i = si; i < nc; i++){ while(j < 2000 || i == (nc-1)){ if(prime(entries[i])){ if(entries[i] > lp) lp = entries[i]; } j++; } } return (void*)currentPack; } void* assign(void* num) { int y = (int)num; int i; int count = 10000000/y; int finalCount = count + (10000000%y); int sIndex = 0; pack pack_array[(int)num]; pthread_t workers[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the workers for(i = 0; i < y; i++){ if(i == (y-1)){ pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = finalCount; } pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = count; pthread_create(&workers[i], NULL, findPrime, (void *)&pack_array[i]); sIndex += count; } for(i = 0; i< y; i++) pthread_join(workers[i], NULL); } //Functions int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); }

    Read the article

  • How to check if a thread is busy in C#?

    - by Sam
    I have a Windows Forms UI running on a thread, Thread1. I have another thread, Thread2, that gets tons of data via external events that needs to update the Windows UI. (It actually updates multiple UI threads.) I have a third thread, Thread3, that I use as a buffer thread between Thread1 and Thread2 so that Thread2 can continue to update other threads (via the same method). My buffer thread, Thread3, looks like this: public class ThreadBuffer { public ThreadBuffer(frmUI form, CustomArgs e) { form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(e); }); } } What I would like to do is for my ThreadBuffer to check whether my form is currently busy doing previous updates. If it is, I'd like for it to wait until it frees up and then invoke the UpdateUI(e). I was thinking about either: a) //PseudoCode while(form==busy) { // Do nothing; } form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(e); }); How would I check the form==busy? Also, I am not sure that this is a good approach. b) Create an event in form1 that will notify the ThreadBuffer that it is ready to process. // psuedocode List<CustomArgs> elist = new List<CustomArgs>(); public ThreadBuffer(frmUI form, CustomArgs e) { from.OnFreedUp += from_OnFreedUp(); elist.Add(e); } private form_OnFreedUp() { if (elist.count == 0) return; form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(elist[0]); }); elist.Remove(elist[0]); } In this case, how would I write an event that will notify that the form is free? and c) an other ideas?

    Read the article

  • Blackberry screen navigation probelm

    - by dalandroid
    I have a Screen name DownloaderScreen when the screen start it will start download some file and when download is complete it will go forward to next screen autometically. I using the following code. public DownloaderScreen() { super(NO_VERTICAL_SCROLL | NO_HORIZONTAL_SCROLL | USE_ALL_HEIGHT | USE_ALL_WIDTH); this.application = UiApplication.getUiApplication(); HorizontalFieldManager outerBlock = new HorizontalFieldManager(USE_ALL_HEIGHT); VerticalFieldManager innerBlock = new VerticalFieldManager(USE_ALL_WIDTH | FIELD_VCENTER); innerBlock.setPadding(0, 10, 0, 10); outerBlock.setBackground(BackgroundFactory .createBitmapBackground(LangValue.dlBgimg)); outerBlock.add(innerBlock); add(outerBlock); phraseHelper = new PhraseHelper(); final String[][] phraseList = phraseHelper.getDownloadList(); gaugeField = new GaugeField("Downloading ", 0, phraseList.length, 0, GaugeField.PERCENT); innerBlock.add(gaugeField); Thread dlTread = new Thread() { public void run() { startDownload(phraseList); } }; dlTread.start(); } private void startDownload(String[][] phraseList){ if(phraseList.length!=0){ for(int i=0; i < phraseList.length ; i++){// gaugeField.setValue(i); // code for download } } goToNext(); } private void goToNext() { final Screen currentScreen = application.getActiveScreen(); if (UiApplication.isEventDispatchThread()) { application.popScreen(currentScreen); application.pushScreen(new HomeScreen()); } else { application.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { application.popScreen(currentScreen); application.pushScreen(new HomeScreen()); } }); } } The code is working fine and starts download files and when download is completed it is going forward to next screen. But when there is no file to download phraseList array length is zero, it is not going forward. What is problem in my code?

    Read the article

  • Another thread safe queue implementation

    - by jensph
    I have a class, Queue, that I tried to make thread safe. It has these three member variables: std::queue<T> m_queue; pthread_mutex_t m_mutex; pthread_cond_t m_condition; and a push and pop implemented as: template<class T> void Queue<T>::push(T value) { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); m_queue.push(value); if( !m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_signal( &m_condition ); } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); } template<class T> bool Queue<T>::pop(T& value, bool block) { bool rtn = false; pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); if( block ) { while( m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_wait( &m_condition, &m_mutex ); } } if( !m_queue.empty() ) { value = m_queue.front(); m_queue.pop(); rtn = true; } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); return rtn; } Unfortunately there are occasional issues that may be the fault of this code. That is, there are two threads and sometimes thread 1 never comes out of push() and at other times thread 2 never comes out of pop() (the block parameter is true) though the queue isn't empty. I understand there are other implementations available, but I'd like to try to fix this code, if needed. Anyone see any issues? The constructor has the appropriate initializations: Queue() { pthread_mutex_init( &mMutex, NULL ); pthread_cond_init( &mCondition, NULL ); } and the destructor, the corresponding 'destroy' calls.

    Read the article

  • Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    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

  • UITableViewController executes delate functions before network request finishes

    - by user1543132
    I'm having trouble trying to populate a UITableView with the results of a network request. It seems that my code is alright as it works perfectly when my network is speedy, however, when it's not, the function - (UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath- still executes, which results in a bad access error. I presume that this is because the array that the aforesaid function attempts to utilize has not been populated. This brings me to my question: Is there anyway that I can have the UITableView delegate methods delayed to avoid this? - (UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath { static NSString *CellIdentifier = @"AlbumsCell"; //UITableViewCell *basicCell = [tableView dequeueReusableCellWithIdentifier:CellIdentifier forIndexPath:indexPath]; AlbumsCell *cell = (AlbumsCell *)[tableView dequeueReusableCellWithIdentifier:CellIdentifier]; if (!cell) { **// Here is where the Thread 1: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (code=2 address=0x8)** cell = [[[AlbumsCell alloc] initWithStyle:UITableViewCellStyleDefault reuseIdentifier:CellIdentifier] autorelease]; } Album *album = [_albums objectAtIndex:[indexPath row]]; [cell setAlbum:album]; return cell; }

    Read the article

  • Can I overwrite an Object that has been Locked() in C#?

    - by makerofthings7
    I have a few objects that I'd like to send to the server, but I want to make sure that this is the only thread that moving the data from Stage to Upload. Is the following code valid in a multithreaded environment? List<CounterInternal> UploadToServer = new List<CounterInternal>(); List<CounterInternal> StagingQueue = new List<CounterInternal>(); lock (this.UploadToServer) lock (this.StagingQueue) { if (UploadToServer.Count == 0) { UploadToServer = StagingQueue.DoDeepCopyExtensionMethod(); // is the following line valid given that I have a Lock() on it? StagingQueue = new List<CounterInternal>(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Thread-Safe lazy instantiating using MEF

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private static readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { // It seems the `IsValueCreated` is not up-to-date 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 static 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. I should notice the CompositionContainer has a thread-safe option in constructor which is already used. 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

  • New form on a different thread

    - by Dan
    So I have a thread in my application, which purpose is to listen to messages from the server and act according to what it recieves. I ran into a problem when I wanted to fire off a message from the server, that when the client app recieves it, the client app would open up a new form. However this new form just freezes instantly. I think what's happening is that the new form is loaded up on the same thread as the thread listening to the server, which of course is busy listening on the stream, in turn blocking the thread. Normally, for my other functions in the clients listening thread, I'd use invokes to update the UI of the main form, so I guess what I'm asking for is if here's a way to invoke a new form on the main form.

    Read the article

  • Waiting for thread to finish Python

    - by lunchtime
    Alright, here's my problem. I have a thread that creates another thread in a pool, applies async so I can work with the returned data, which is working GREAT. But I need the current thread to WAIT until the result is returned. Here is the simplified code, as the current script is over 300 lines. I'm sure i've included everything for you to make sense of what I'm attempting: from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool import threading pool = ThreadPool(processes=1) class MyStreamer(TwythonStreamer): #[...] def on_success(self, data): #### Everytime data comes in, this is called #[...] #<Pseudocode> if score >= limit if list exists: Do stuff elif list does not exist: #</Pseudocode> dic = [] dic.append([k1, v1]) did = dict(dic) async_result = pool.apply_async(self.list_step, args=(did)) return_val = async_result.get() slug = return_val[0] idd = return_val[1] #[...] def list_step(self, *args): ## CREATE LIST ## RETURN 2 VALUES class threadStream (threading.Thread): def __init__(self, auth): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.auth = auth def run(self): stream = MyStreamer(auth = auth[0], *auth[0]) stream.statuses.filter(track=auth[1]) t = threadStream(auth=AuthMe) t.start() I receive the results as intended, which is great, but how do I make it so this thread t waits for the async_result to come in?? My problem is everytime new data comes in, it seems that the ## CREATE LIST function is called multiple times if similar data comes in quickly enough. So I'm ending up with many lists of the same name when I have code in place to ensure that a list will never be created if the name already exists. So to reiterate: How do I make this thread wait on the function to complete before accepting new data / continuing. I don't think time.sleep() works because on_success is called when data enters the stream. I don't think Thread.Join() will work either since I have to use a ThreadPool.apply_async to receive the data I need. Is there a hack I can make in the MyStreamer class somehow? I'm kind of at a loss here. Am I over complicating things and can this be simplified to do what I want?

    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

  • C# Multi threading- Move objects between threads

    - by Grant
    Hi, i am working with a winforms control that is both a GUI element and also does some internal processing that has not been exposed to the developer. When this component is instantiated it may take between 5 and 15 seconds to become ready so what i want to do is put it on another thread and when its done bring it back to the gui thread and place it on my form. The problem is that this will (and has) cause a cross thread exception. Normally when i work with worker threads its just with simple data objects i can push back when processing is complete and then use with controls already on the main thread but ive never needed to move an entire control in this fashion. Does anyone know if this is possible and if so how? If not how does one deal with a problem like this where there is the potential to lock the main gui?

    Read the article

  • "pseudo-atomic" operations in C++

    - by dan
    So I'm aware that nothing is atomic in C++. But I'm trying to figure out if there are any "pseudo-atomic" assumptions I can make. The reason is that I want to avoid using mutexes in some simple situations where I only need very weak guarantees. 1) Suppose I have globally defined volatile bool b, which initially I set true. Then I launch a thread which executes a loop while(b) doSomething(); Meanwhile, in another thread, I execute b=true. Can I assume that the first thread will continue to execute? In other words, if b starts out as true, and the first thread checks the value of b at the same time as the second thread assigns b=true, can I assume that the first thread will read the value of b as true? Or is it possible that at some intermediate point of the assignment b=true, the value of b might be read as false? 2) Now suppose that b is initially false. Then the first thread executes bool b1=b; bool b2=b; if(b1 && !b2) bad(); while the second thread executes b=true. Can I assume that bad() never gets called? 3) What about an int or other builtin types: suppose I have volatile int i, which is initially (say) 7, and then I assign i=7. Can I assume that, at any time during this operation, from any thread, the value of i will be equal to 7? 4) I have volatile int i=7, and then I execute i++ from some thread, and all other threads only read the value of i. Can I assume that i never has any value, in any thread, except for either 7 or 8? 5) I have volatile int i, from one thread I execute i=7, and from another I execute i=8. Afterwards, is i guaranteed to be either 7 or 8 (or whatever two values I have chosen to assign)?

    Read the article

  • Java: multi-threaded maps: how do the implementations compare?

    - by user346629
    I'm looking for a good hash map implementation. Specifically, one that's good for creating a large number of maps, most of them small. So memory is an issue. It should be thread-safe (though losing the odd put might be an OK compromise in return for better performance), and fast for both get and put. And I'd also like the moon on a stick, please, with a side-order of justice. The options I know are: HashMap. Disastrously un-thread safe. ConcurrentHashMap. My first choice, but this has a hefty memory footprint - about 2k per instance. Collections.sychronizedMap(HashMap). That's working OK for me, but I'm sure there must be faster alternatives. Trove or Colt - I think neither of these are thread-safe, but perhaps the code could be adapted to be thread safe. Any others? Any advice on what beats what when? Any really good new hash map algorithms that Java could use an implementation of? Thanks in advance for your input!

    Read the article

  • BackgroundWorker acting bizarrely...

    - by vdh_ant
    Hi guys I'm working on some code that calls a service. This service call could fail and if it does I want the system to try again until it works or too much time has passed. I am wondering where I am going wrong as the following code doesn't seem to be working correctly... It randomly only does one to four loops... protected virtual void ProcessAsync(object data, int count) { var worker = new BackgroundWorker(); worker.DoWork += (sender, e) => { throw new InvalidOperationException("oh shiznit!"); }; worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) => { //If an error occurs we need to tell the data about it if (e.Error != null) { count++; System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(count * 5000); if (count <= 10) { if (count % 5 == 0) this.Logger.Fatal("LOAD ERROR - The system can't load any data", e.Error); else this.Logger.Error("LOAD ERROR - The system can't load any data", e.Error); this.ProcessAsync(data, count); } } }; worker.RunWorkerAsync(); } Cheers Anthony

    Read the article

  • passing parameter to dowork?

    - by safi
    How can i Pass parameter to background_DoWork? public void bgw1_DoWork(Object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { make_zip_file argumentest = e.Argument as make_zip_file; Thread.Sleep(100); argumentest.return_path = argumentest.Makezipfile(files, IsOriginal); e.Result = argumentest; } i need to pass files,isOrginal parameter...? i am calling this method: public string run_async() { bgw1.DoWork += bgw1_DoWork; bgw1.RunWorkerCompleted += bgw1_RunWorkerCompleted; make_zip_file mzf2 = new make_zip_file(); bgw1.RunWorkerAsync(); return return_path; }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >