Search Results

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

Page 56/66 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • Create table class as a singleton

    - by Mark
    I got a class that I use as a table. This class got an array of 16 row classes. These row classes all have 6 double variables. The values of these rows are set once and never change. Would it be a good practice to make this table a singleton? The advantage is that it cost less memory, but the table will be called from multiple threads so I have to synchronize my code which way cause a bit slower application. However lookups in this table are probably a very small portion of the total code that is executed. EDIT: This is my code, are there better ways to do this or is this a good practice? Removed synchronized keyword according to recommendations in this question. final class HalfTimeTable { private HalfTimeRow[] table = new HalfTimeRow[16]; private static final HalfTimeTable instance = new HalfTimeTable(); private HalfTimeTable() { if (instance != null) { throw new IllegalStateException("Already instantiated"); } table[0] = new HalfTimeRow(4.0, 1.2599, 0.5050, 1.5, 1.7435, 0.1911); table[1] = new HalfTimeRow(8.0, 1.0000, 0.6514, 3.0, 1.3838, 0.4295); //etc } @Override @Deprecated public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException { throw new CloneNotSupportedException(); } public static HalfTimeTable getInstance() { return instance; } public HalfTimeRow getRow(int rownumber) { return table[rownumber]; } }

    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

  • passing variables when calling methon in new thread (iphone)

    - by Mouhamad Lamaa
    dear stacks i need to pass variables to the thread method when creating a new thread my code is the follwing //generating thread [NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(startThread) toTarget:self withObject:nil]; thread job - (void)startThread:(NSInteger *)var img:(UIImageView *) Img{ NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; [NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:var]; [self performSelectorOnMainThread:@selector(threadMethod) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO]; //i need to pass Img to threadMethod: [pool release]; } thread Method - (void)threadMethod:(UIImageView *) Img { //do some coding. } so how i can do this (pass parameter to both of methods

    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

  • 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

  • Suggestions for lightweight, thread-safe scheduler

    - by nirvanai
    I am trying to write a round-robin scheduler for lightweight threads (fibers). It must scale to handle as many concurrently-scheduled fibers as possible. I also need to be able to schedule fibers from threads other than the one the run loop is on, and preferably unschedule them from arbitrary threads as well (though I could live with only being able to unschedule them from the run loop). My current idea is to have a circular doubly-linked list, where each fiber is a node and the scheduler holds a reference to the current node. This is what I have so far: using Interlocked = System.Threading.Interlocked; public class Thread { internal Future current_fiber; public void RunLoop () { while (true) { var fiber = current_fiber; if (fiber == null) { // block the thread until a fiber is scheduled continue; } if (fiber.Fulfilled) fiber.Unschedule (); else fiber.Resume (); //if (current_fiber == fiber) current_fiber = fiber.next; Interlocked.CompareExchange<Future> (ref current_fiber, fiber.next, fiber); } } } public abstract class Future { public bool Fulfilled { get; protected set; } internal Future previous, next; // this must be thread-safe // it inserts this node before thread.current_fiber // (getting the exact position doesn't matter, as long as the // chosen nodes haven't been unscheduled) public void Schedule (Thread thread) { next = this; // maintain circularity, even if this is the only node previous = this; try_again: var current = Interlocked.CompareExchange<Future> (ref thread.current_fiber, this, null); if (current == null) return; var target = current.previous; while (target == null) { // current was unscheduled; negotiate for new current_fiber var potential = current.next; var actual = Interlocked.CompareExchange<Future> (ref thread.current_fiber, potential, current); current = (actual == current? potential : actual); if (current == null) goto try_again; target = current.previous; } // I would lock "current" and "target" at this point. // How can I do this w/o risk of deadlock? next = current; previous = target; target.next = this; current.previous = this; } // this would ideally be thread-safe public void Unschedule () { var prev = previous; if (prev == null) { // already unscheduled return; } previous = null; if (next == this) { next = null; return; } // Again, I would lock "prev" and "next" here // How can I do this w/o risk of deadlock? prev.next = next; next.previous = prev; } public abstract void Resume (); } As you can see, my sticking point is that I cannot ensure the order of locking, so I can't lock more than one node without risking deadlock. Or can I? I don't want to have a global lock on the Thread object, since the amount of lock contention would be extreme. Plus, I don't especially care about insertion position, so if I lock each node separately then Schedule() could use something like Monitor.TryEnter and just keep walking the list until it finds an unlocked node. Overall, I'm not invested in any particular implementation, as long as it meets the requirements I've mentioned. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! P.S- For the curious, this is for an open source project I'm starting at http://github.com/nirvanai/Cirrus

    Read the article

  • Limiting object allocation over multiple threads

    - by John
    I have an application which retrieves and caches the results of a clients query. The client then requests different chunks of data and the application sends the relevant results and removes them from the cache. A new requirement for this application is that there needs to be a run-time configurable maximum number of results which may be cached. I've taken the naive approach and implemented this by using a counter under a lock which is incremented every time a result is cached and decremented whenever a result is removed from the cache. Unfortunately, this has drastically reduced the applications performance when processing a large number of concurrent requests. I have tried both a critical section lock and spin-lock; the performance improves a bit with a spin-lock, but is still unacceptably slow. Is there a better way to solve this problem which may improve performance? Right now I have a thread pool that services requests and each request is tied to a Request object which stores that cached results for that particular request. Here is a simplified pseudo code version of my current implementation: void ResultCallback( Result result, Request *request ) { lock totalResultsCached lock cachedLimit if( totalResultsCached + 1 > cachedLimit ) { unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached //cancel the request return; } ++totalResultsCached; unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached request.add(result) } void SendResults( int resultsToSend, Request *request ) { while ( resultsToSend > 0 ) { send(request.remove()) lock totalResultsCached --totalResultsCached unlock totalResultsCached --resultsToSend; } }

    Read the article

  • Application window sent behind other windows on closing different thread (C#)

    - by david.murrant
    I'm writing a Windows Forms Application in C#.NET On startup, the application displays a splash screen which is running in a separate thread. Whilst the splash screen is showing, the main application is initialising. Once the main application has finished initialising, the main form of the application is displayed, and the splash screen still shows over the top. Everything so far is as expected. Then, the Splash screen is closed, which causes that thread to exit. For some reason, at the point, the main application windows gets sent behind all other open Windows, notably the Windows Explorer window where you clicked the .exe file to run the application in the first place! What could be causing the windows to suddenly jump "behind" like this?

    Read the article

  • .NET Threading : How to wait for other thread to finish some task

    - by Alex Ilyin
    Assume I have method void SomeMethod(Action callback) This method does some work in background thread and then invokes callback. The question is - how to block current thread until callback is called ? There is an example bool finished = false; SomeMethod(delegate{ finished = true; }); while(!finished) Thread.Sleep(); But I'm sure there should be better way

    Read the article

  • Thread too slow. Better way to execute code (Android AndEngine)?

    - by rphello101
    I'm developing a game where the user creates sprites with every touch. I then have a thread run to check to see if those sprites collide with any others. The problem is, if I tap too quickly, I cause a null pointer exception error. I believe it's because I'm tapping faster than my thread is running. This is the thread I have: public class grow implements Runnable{ public grow(Sprite sprite){ } @Override public void run() { float radf, rads; //fill radius/stationary radius float fx=0, fy=0, sx, sy; while(down){ if(spriteC[spriteNum].active){ spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.setScale(spriteC[spriteNum].scale += 0.001); if(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(ground)||spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(roof)|| spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(left)||spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(right)){ down = false; spriteC[spriteNum].active=false; yourScene.unregisterTouchArea(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite); } fx = spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.getX(); fy = spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.getY(); radf=spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.getHeightScaled()/2; Log.e("F"+Float.toString(fx),Float.toString(fy)); if(spriteNum>0) for(int x=0;x<spriteNum;x++){ rads=spriteC[x].sprite.getHeightScaled()/2; sx = spriteC[x].body.getWorldCenter().x * 32; sy = spriteC[x].body.getWorldCenter().y * 32; Log.e("S"+Float.toString(sx),Float.toString(sy)); Log.e(Float.toString((float) Math.sqrt(Math.pow((fx-sx),2)+Math.pow((fy-sy),2))),Float.toString((radf+rads))); if(Math.sqrt(Math.pow((fx-sx),2)+Math.pow((fy-sy),2))<(radf+rads)){ down = false; spriteC[spriteNum].active=false; yourScene.unregisterTouchArea(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite); Log.e("Collided",Boolean.toString(down)); } } } } spriteC[spriteNum].body = PhysicsFactory.createCircleBody(mPhysicsWorld, spriteC[spriteNum].sprite, BodyType.DynamicBody, FIXTURE_DEF); mPhysicsWorld.registerPhysicsConnector(new PhysicsConnector(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite, spriteC[spriteNum].body, true, true)); } } Better solution anyone? I know there is something to do with a handler, but I don't exactly know what that is or how to use one.

    Read the article

  • Manually Increasing the Amount of CPU a Java Application Uses

    - by SkylineAddict
    I've just made a program with Eclipse that takes a really long time to execute. It's taking even longer because it's loading my CPU to 25% only (I'm assuming that is because I'm using a quad-core and the program is only using one core). Is there any way to make the program use all 4 cores to max it out? Java is supposed to be natively multi-threaded, so I don't understand why it would only use 25%.

    Read the article

  • Windows service thread not updating database until complete

    - by dfarney
    I have a windows service with a FileSystemWatcher. When a new file is dropped in my folder a new thread is created, started, and I begin processing the file. Throughout this process I am making updates to the database (Linq to SQL) to keep track of the file's processing progress. Problem is none of my database updates are reflected throughout the process, just an update after everything has been completed. Any ideas? Note: when doing dev/testing my code was in an aspx page and worked great, but when I put it in a windows service I no longer get the progress updates. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Java Socket - how to catch Exception of BufferedReader.readline()

    - by Hasan Tahsin
    I have a Thread (let's say T1) which reads data from socket: public void run() { while (running) { try { BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader( new InputStreamReader(socket.getInputStream()) ); String input = reader.readLine(); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } Another Thread (lets say T2) try to finish the program in one of its method. Therefore T2 does the following: T1.running = false; socket.close(); Here is this scenario for which i couldn't find a solution: T1 is active and waiting for some input to read i.e. blocking. context switching T2 is active and sets running to false, closes the socket context switching because T1 was blocking and T2 closed the socket, T1 throws an Exception. What i want is to catch this SocketException. i can't put a try/catch(SocketException) in T1.run(). So how can i catch it in T1's running-method? If it's not possible to catch it in T1's running, then how can i catch it elsewhere? PS: "Another question about the Thread Debugging" Normally when i debug the code step by step, i lose the 'active running line' on a context switch. Let's say i'm in line 20 of T1, context switch happens, let's assume the program continues from the 30.line of T2, but the debugger does not go/show to the 30.line of T2, instead the 'active running line' vanishes. So i lose the control over the code. I use Eclipse for Java and Visual Studio for C#. So what is the best way to track the code while debugging on a context switch ?

    Read the article

  • Easy Threading in WPF

    - by Sandeep Bansal
    Hi everyone, I've been reading a lot about threading in C#, WPF and Silverlight but can't get it to work. My main problem is I have the _load (_Initialized) action and it has a lot of object creation and along with that I have timers working doing different things, this causes the startup time of the program to be very slow and obviously causes the UI to hang and it isn't a good thing for deploying to a lot of users. My timers change values of labels and textfields but having them do that on another thread is an obvious no go. So can someone give me some examples on how to achieve what I need to do? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Can I avoid a threaded UDP socket in Pyton dropping data?

    - by 666craig
    First off, I'm new to Python and learning on the job, so be gentle! I'm trying to write a threaded Python app for Windows that reads data from a UDP socket (thread-1), writes it to file (thread-2), and displays the live data (thread-3) to a widget (gtk.Image using a gtk.gdk.pixbuf). I'm using queues for communicating data between threads. My problem is that if I start only threads 1 and 3 (so skip the file writing for now), it seems that I lose some data after the first few samples. After this drop it looks fine. Even by letting thread 1 complete before running thread 3, this apparent drop is still there. Apologies for the length of code snippet (I've removed the thread that writes to file), but I felt removing code would just prompt questions. Hope someone can shed some light :-) import socket import threading import Queue import numpy import gtk gtk.gdk.threads_init() import gtk.glade import pygtk class readFromUDPSocket(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, socketUDP, readDataQueue, packetSize, numScans): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.socketUDP = socketUDP self.readDataQueue = readDataQueue self.packetSize = packetSize self.numScans = numScans def run(self): for scan in range(1, self.numScans + 1): buffer = self.socketUDP.recv(self.packetSize) self.readDataQueue.put(buffer) self.socketUDP.close() print 'myServer finished!' class displayWithGTK(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, displayDataQueue, image, viewArea): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.displayDataQueue = displayDataQueue self.image = image self.viewWidth = viewArea[0] self.viewHeight = viewArea[1] self.displayData = numpy.zeros((self.viewHeight, self.viewWidth, 3), dtype=numpy.uint16) def run(self): scan = 0 try: while True: if not scan % self.viewWidth: scan = 0 buffer = self.displayDataQueue.get(timeout=0.1) self.displayData[:, scan, 0] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) self.displayData[:, scan, 1] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) self.displayData[:, scan, 2] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) gtk.gdk.threads_enter() self.myPixbuf = gtk.gdk.pixbuf_new_from_data(self.displayData.tostring(), gtk.gdk.COLORSPACE_RGB, False, 8, self.viewWidth, self.viewHeight, self.viewWidth * 3) self.image.set_from_pixbuf(self.myPixbuf) self.image.show() gtk.gdk.threads_leave() scan += 1 except Queue.Empty: print 'myDisplay finished!' pass def quitGUI(obj): print 'Currently active threads: %s' % threading.enumerate() gtk.main_quit() if __name__ == '__main__': # Create socket (IPv4 protocol, datagram (UDP)) and bind to address socketUDP = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM) host = '192.168.1.5' port = 1024 socketUDP.bind((host, port)) # Data parameters samplesPerScan = 256 packetsPerSecond = 1200 packetSize = 512 duration = 1 # For now, set a fixed duration to log data numScans = int(packetsPerSecond * duration) # Create array to store data data = numpy.zeros((samplesPerScan, numScans), dtype=numpy.uint16) # Create queue for displaying from readDataQueue = Queue.Queue(numScans) # Build GUI from Glade XML file builder = gtk.Builder() builder.add_from_file('GroundVue.glade') window = builder.get_object('mainwindow') window.connect('destroy', quitGUI) view = builder.get_object('viewport') image = gtk.Image() view.add(image) viewArea = (1200, samplesPerScan) # Instantiate & start threads myServer = readFromUDPSocket(socketUDP, readDataQueue, packetSize, numScans) myDisplay = displayWithGTK(readDataQueue, image, viewArea) myServer.start() myDisplay.start() gtk.gdk.threads_enter() gtk.main() gtk.gdk.threads_leave() print 'gtk.main finished!'

    Read the article

  • C# Anyway to detect if an object is locked.

    - by scope-creep
    Hi, Is their anyway to determine if a object is locked in c#. I have the unenviable position, through design where i'm reading from a queue inside a class, and I need to dump the contents into a collection in the class. But that collection is also read/write from an interface outside the class. So obviously their may be a case when the collection is being written to, as the same time i want to write to it. I could program round it, say using delegate but it would be ugly. Bob.

    Read the article

  • Python threading question (Working with a method that blocks forever)

    - by Nix
    I am trying to wrap a thread around some receiving logic in python. Basically we have an app, that will have a thread in the background polling for messages, the problem I ran into is that piece that actually pulls the messages waits forever for a message. Making it impossible to terminate... I ended up wrapping the pull in another thread, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't a better way to do it. Original code: class Manager: def __init__(self): receiver = MessageReceiver() receiver.start() #do other stuff... class MessageReceiver(Thread): receiver = Receiver() def __init__(self): Thread.__init__(self) def run(self): #stop is a flag that i use to stop the thread... while(not stopped ): #can never stop because pull below blocks message = receiver.pull() print "Message" + message What I refectored to: class Manager: def __init__(self): receiver = MessageReceiver() receiver.start() class MessageReceiver(Thread): receiver = Receiver() def __init__(self): Thread.__init__(self) def run(self): pullThread = PullThread(self.receiver) pullThread.start() #stop is a flag that i use to stop the thread... while(not stopped and pullThread.last_message ==None): pass message = pullThread.last_message print "Message" + message class PullThread(Thread): last_message = None def __init__(self, receiver): Thread.__init(self, target=get_message, args=(receiver)) def get_message(self, receiver): self.last_message = None self.last_message = receiver.pull() return self.last_message I know the obvious locking issues exist, but is this the appropriate way to control a receive thread that waits forever for a message? One thing I did notice was this thing eats 100% cpu while waiting for a message... **If you need to see the stopping logic please let me know and I will post.

    Read the article

  • Can one thread open a socket and other thread close it?

    - by Pkp
    I have some kernel threads in Linux kernel, inside my KLM. I have a server thread, that listens to the channel, Once it sees there is an incoming connection, it creates an accept socket, accepts the connection and spawns a child thread. It also passes the accepted socket to the child kernel thread as the (void *) argument. The code is working fine. I had a design question. Suppose now the threads have to be terminated, main and the child threads, what would be the best way to close the accept socket. I can see two ways, 1] The main thread waits for all the child threads to exit, each of the child threads close the accept sockets while exiting, the last child thread passes a signal to the main thread for it to exit . Here even though the main thread was the one that created the accept socket, the child threads close that socket, and they do this before the main thread exits. So is this acceptable? Any problems you guys forsee here? 2] Second is the main thread closes all the accept sockets it created before it exits. But there may be a possibility(corner case) that the main thread gets an exception and will have to close, so if it closes the accept sockets before exiting, the child threads using that socket will be in danger. Hence i am using the first case i mentioned.Let me know what you guys think?

    Read the article

  • Implementing deadlock condition

    - by Bhaskar
    I am trying to implementing deadlock condition but somehow I am not able to get it working. Both the threads Thread1 and Thread2 are entering in the run function but only one of them enters in Sub/Sum depending on who entered run first. Example : if Thread2 entered run first the it will call sub() and Thread1 never calls sum(). I have also added sleep time so that Thread2 sleeps before calling sum() and Thread1 gets enough time to enter Sum() but Thread1 never enters. public class ExploringThreads { public static void main(String[] args) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub threadexample a1 = new threadexample(); Thread t1 = new Thread(a1, "Thread1"); Thread t2 = new Thread(a1,"Thread2"); t1.start(); t2.start(); } } class threadexample implements Runnable{ public int a = 10; public void run(){ if(Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread1")) sum(); else if(Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread2")) sub(); } public synchronized void sum() { try { Thread.sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+"In Sum"); sub(); } public synchronized void sub() { try { Thread.sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+"In Sub"); sum(); } }

    Read the article

  • Are there concurrency problems when using -performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: ?

    - by mystify
    For example, I often use this: [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:someDelay]; Now, lets say I call this 10 times to perform at the exact same delay, like: [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; - (void)doSomethingAfterDelay:(id)someObject { /* access an array, read stuff, write stuff, do different things that would suffer in multithreaded environments .... all operations are nonatomic! */ } I have observed pretty strange behavior when doing things like this. For my understanding, this method schedules a timer to fire on the current thread, so in this case the main thread. But since it doesn't create new threads, it actually should not be possible to run into concurrency problems, right?

    Read the article

  • Are there concurrency problems when using -performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: ?

    - by mystify
    For example, I often use this: [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:someDelay]; Now, lets say I call this 10 times to perform at the exact same delay, like: [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; [self performSelector:@selector(doSomethingAfterDelay:) withObject:someObject afterDelay:2.0]; - (void)doSomethingAfterDelay:(id)someObject { /* access an array, read stuff, write stuff, do different things that would suffer in multithreaded environments .... all operations are nonatomic! */ } I have observed pretty strange behavior when doing things like this. For my understanding, this method schedules a timer to fire on the current thread, so in this case the main thread. But since it doesn't create new threads, it actually should not be possible to run into concurrency problems, right?

    Read the article

  • [java] run 2 threads simultaneously

    - by lamsaitat
    hi all, in the case of an IM client. i have made 2 separate threads to handle sending packets (by std io) and receiving packets. the question is how to make these 2 threads run simultaneously so that i can keep prompting for input while at the same time be ready to receive packets at any time? i have already tried setting a timer but the data is always lost receiving.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >