Search Results

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

Page 58/66 | < Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | 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

  • Java - multithreaded access to a local value store which is periodically cleared

    - by Telax
    I'm hoping for some advice or suggestions on how best to handle multi threaded access to a value store. My local value storage is designed to hold onto objects which are currently in use. If the object is not in use then it is removed from the store. A value is pumped into my store via thread1, its entry into the store is announced to listeners, and the value is stored. Values coming in on thread1 will either be totally new values or updates for existing values. A timer is used to periodically remove any value from the store which is not currently in use and so all that remains of this value is its ID held locally by an intermediary. Now, an active element on thread2 may wake up and try to access a set of values by passing a set of value IDs which it knows about. Some values will be stored already (great) and some may not (sadface). Those values which are not already stored will be retrieved from an external source. My main issue is that items which have not already been stored and are currently being queried for may arrive in on thread1 before the query is complete. I'd like to try and avoid locking access to the store whilst a query is being made as it may take some time.

    Read the article

  • Threading in java vs C#

    - by ffayyaz
    I need a little confirmation over something i am confused at . I know how threads work in java. new DialList(string a , string b).start(); // where DialList is a class public class DialList extends Thread { public DialList(String a, string b) { FilePath = a; ThreadLogFile = b"; } public void run() { // some code to run in different thread } } Now i want to run same code in C# , Shall i put the code which is in run() into a method and do something like Thread t = new Thread (runcsharp); // Kick off a new thread t.Start(); static void runcsharp() { // code } or is there some other way to do it ?

    Read the article

  • New to threading in C#, can you make thread methods generic and what are the dangers?

    - by ibarczewski
    Hey all, I'm just now starting to get into the idea of threading, and wanted to know if I could make this more abstract. Both foo and bar derive methods from a base class, so I'd like to pass in one or the other and be able to do work using a method that was derived. I'd also like to know how you properly name threads and the methods inside threads. if (ChkFoo.Checked) { Thread fooThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThreadedFooMethod)); fooThread.Start(); } if (ChkBar.Checked) { Thread barThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThreadedBarMethod)); barThread.Start(); } . . . public void ThreadedFooMethod() { Foo newFoo = new Foo(); //Do work on newFoo } public void ThreadedBarMethod() { Bar newBar = new Bar(); //Do similar work } Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • Threading in C#

    - by j-t-s
    Hi All Just looking for something ultra simple. I need to spawn a method off to a new thread. I don't care when or how it ends. Can somebody please help me with this? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Does SetThreadPriority cause thread reschedulling?

    - by Suma
    Consider following situation, assuming single CPU system: thread A is running with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL, signals event E thread B with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_LOWEST is waiting for an event E (Note: at this point the thread is not scheduled because it is runnable, but A is higher priority and runnable as well) thread A calls SetThreadPriority(B, THREAD_PRIORITY_ABOVE_NORMAL) Is thread B re-scheduled immediately to run, or is thread A allowed to continue until current time-slice is over, and B is scheduled only once a new time-slice has begun? I would be interested to know the answer for WinXP, Vista and Win7, if possible. Note: the scenario above is simplified from my real world code, where multiple threads are running on multiple cores, but the main object of the question stays: does SetThreadPriority cause thread scheduling to happen?

    Read the article

  • C# thread safety for class instances

    - by Steveng
    I am learning C# and I am confused with the thread safety of the copies of the class instances as below: eg: classA objA; classA objB = objA; objA.field1 = value2; //do I need lock around modification of field1? //let say we pass the objB to another thread objB.field1 = value1 //do I need a lock for objB because of the modification of field1? I am confused because coming from the background of C++, the class in C# is the reference type. If both objA and objB refer to the same memory underlying, then I would need a lock to protect the simultaneous writing to the field1. Could someone confirm with this or am I missing something? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • In C# is there a thread scheduler for long running threads?

    - by LogicMagic
    Hi, Our scenario is a network scanner. It connects to a set of hosts and scans them in parallel for a while using low priority background threads. I want to be able to schedule lots of work but only have any given say ten or whatever number of hosts scanned in parallel. Even if I create my own threads, the many callbacks and other asynchronous goodness uses the ThreadPool and I end up running out of resources. I should look at MonoTorrent... If I use THE ThreadPool, can I limit my application to some number that will leave enough for the rest of the application to Run smoothly? Is there a threadpool that I can initialize to n long lived threads?

    Read the article

  • IS ResultSet thread safe

    - by javatraniee
    Is ResultSet Thread safe? My question arises because in this i have used a different statement for each query i have delsared a ResultSet as an local variable but it gives me a error of Operation not allowed after ResultSet is closed. But my statements are working as i'm using the statements in insert and delete query.I have commented the ResultSet part and have not got the error !! The source code of my program can be referd to , in my earlier Question .

    Read the article

  • How to address thread-safety of service data used for maintaining static local variables in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider the following scenario. We have a C++ function with a static local variable: void function() { static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } the function needs to be called from multiple threads concurrently, so we add a critical section to avoid concurrent access to the static local: void functionThreadSafe() { CriticalSectionLockClass lock( criticalSection ); static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } but will this be enough? I mean there's some magic that makes the variable being initialized no more than once. So there's some service data maintained by the runtime that indicates whether each static local has already been initialized. Will the critical section in the above code protect that service data as well? Is any extra protection required for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • What happens if you break out of a Lock() statement?

    - by cyclotis04
    I'm writing a program which listens to an incoming TcpClient and handles data when it arrives. The Listen() method is run on a separate thread within the component, so it needs to be threadsafe. If I break out of a do while loop while I'm within a lock() statement, will the lock be released? If not, how do I accomplish this? Thanks! (Any other advice on the subject of Asynchronous TCP Sockets is welcome as well.) private void Listen() { do { lock (_client) { if (!_client.Connected) break; lock (_stateLock) { if (!_listening) break; if (_client.GetStream().DataAvailable) HandleData(); } } Thread.Sleep(0); } while (true); }

    Read the article

  • Java ThreadPool for multiple identical tasks

    - by tdimmig
    I have 1 thread who sole job is to grab DatagramPackets off of a socket and stick them in a buffer. Another thread works out of that buffer, processing the DatagramPackets. I'd like to have a pool of threads working out of that buffer. I had thought to use a fixed thread pool to do this. To do so, do I need to create the pool, then submit enough runnables for execution to fill it up? I had hoped for a way to say "this is the thread/runnable that I want you to execute, this is how many I want running, GO!". Is there such a method of doing this? Is something other than a fixed thread pool better suited?

    Read the article

  • The cross-thread usage of "HttpContext.Current" property and related things

    - by smwikipedia
    I read from < Essential ASP.NET with Examples in C# the following statement: Another useful property to know about is the static Current property of the HttpContext class. This property always points to the current instance of the HttpContext class for the request being serviced. This can be convenient if you are writing helper classes that will be used from pages or other pipeline classes and may need to access the context for whatever reason. By using the static Current property to retrieve the context, you can avoid passing a reference to it to helper classes. For example, the class shown in Listing 4-1 uses the Current property of the context to access the QueryString and print something to the current response buffer. Note that for this static property to be correctly initialized, the caller must be executing on the original request thread, so if you have spawned additional threads to perform work during a request, you must take care to provide access to the context class yourself. I am wondering about the root cause of the bold part, and one thing leads to another, here is my thoughts: We know that a process can have multiple threads. Each of these threads have their own stacks, respectively. These threads also have access to a shared memory area, the heap. The stack then, as I understand it, is kind of where all the context for that thread is stored. For a thread to access something in the heap it must use a pointer, and the pointer is stored on its stack. So when we make some cross-thread calls, we must make sure that all the necessary context info is passed from the caller thread's stack to the callee thread's stack. But I am not quite sure if I made any mistake. Any comments will be deeply appreciated. Thanks. ADD Here the stack is limited to user stack.

    Read the article

  • How do I make this Java code operate properly? [Multi-threaded, race condition]

    - by Fixee
    I got this code from a student, and it does not work properly because of a race condition involving x++ and x--. He added synchronized to the run() method trying to get rid of this bug, but obviously this only excludes threads from entering run() on the same object (which was never a problem in the first place) but doesn't prevent independent objects from updating the same static variable x at the same time. public class DataRace implements Runnable { static volatile int x; public synchronized void run() { for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { x++; x--; } } public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { Thread [] threads = new Thread[100]; for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i] = new Thread(new DataRace()); for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i].start(); for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i].join(); System.out.println(x); // x not always 0! } } Since we cannot synchronize on x (because it is primitive), the best solution I can think of is to create a new static object like static String lock = ""; and enclose the x++ and x-- within a synchronized block, locking on lock. But this seems really awkward. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • C# WPF Unable to control Textboxes

    - by Bo0m3r
    I'm a beginner in coding into C#. While I'm launching a process I can't controls my textboxes. I found some answers on this forum but the explaination is a bit to difficult for me to implement it for my problem. I created a small program that will run a batch file to make a backup. While the backup is running I can't modify my textboxes, disabling buttons etc... I already saw that this is normal but I don't know how to implement the solutions. My last attempt was with Dispatcher.invoke as you can see below. public partial class MainWindow : Window { public MainWindow() { InitializeComponent(); tb_Status.Text = "Ready"; } public void status() { Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Send, new Action( () => { tb_Status.Text = "The backup is running!"; } ) ); } public void process() { try { Process p = new Process(); p.StartInfo.WindowStyle = ProcessWindowStyle.Minimized; p.StartInfo.CreateNoWindow = true; p.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false; p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true; p.StartInfo.FileName = "Robocopy.bat"; p.Start(); string output = p.StandardOutput.ReadToEnd(); p.WaitForExit(); tb_Output.Text = File.ReadAllText("Backup\\log.txt"); } catch (Exception ex) { tb_Status.Text = ex.Message.ToString(); } } private void Bt_Start_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { status(); Directory.CreateDirectory("Backup"); process(); tb_Status.Text = "The backup finished"; File.Delete("Backup\\log.txt"); } } } Any help is appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Thread toggling

    - by sid
    Hi all, In Ubuntu, I am running 2 'C' applications, When I press key up/down the applications are alternatively getting the events. What might be the problem/solution? Ex: I have 'A application' and 'B application', I launch 'A application' and press the key up/down its working fine. If I simultaneously launch 'B application' and focus is on 'B application' then pressing key up/down will toggle between 'A application' & 'B application' so 2 times I have to press the key to move on 'B application'(focus is on 'B application'). 'A application' and 'B application' are threads. Thanks in advance-opensid

    Read the article

  • Perform tasks with delay, without delaying web response (ASP.NET)

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I'm working on a feature that needs to send two text messages with a 30 second delay, and it is crucial that both text messages are sent. Currently, this feature is built with ajax requests, that are sent with a 30 second javascript delay, but since this requires the user to have his browser open and left on the same page for at least 30 seconds, it is not a method I like. Instead, I have tried to solve this with threading. This is what I've done: Public Shared Sub Larma() Dim thread As New System.Threading.Thread(AddressOf Larma_Thread) thread.Start() End Sub Private Shared Sub Larma_Thread() StartaLarm() Thread.Sleep(1000 * 30) StoppaLarm() End Sub A web handler calls Larma(), and StartaLarm() and StoppaLarm() are the methods that send the first and second text messages respectively. However, I only get the first text message delivered - the second is never sent. Am I doing something wrong here? I have no deep understanding of how threading works in ASP.NET, so please let me know how to accomplish this.

    Read the article

  • Error with `Thread.Sleep` during automatic testing on TeamCity 5

    - by yeyeyerman
    Hello, I'm having some problems executing the tests of the application I'm developing. All the tests execute normally with ReSharper and in NCover. However, the execution of one of these tests in TeamCity is generating an error. This test initializes two objects, the object under test and a simulator of a real object. Both objects will communicate throug a serial link in a representation of the real scenario. ObjectSimulator r_simulator = new ObjectSimulator(...); ObjectDriver r_driver = new ObjectDriver(...); Assert.IsTrue(r_driver.Connect() == ErrorCode.Success); The simulator just do the following in the constructor public class ObjectSimulator { ... public ObjectSimulator() { // serial port configuration m_port = new SerialPort(); m_port.DataReceived += DataReceivedEvent; } ... } The main object has two threads. The main thread of the application and a timer to refresh a watchdog timer in the real object. public ErrorCode Connect() { ... StartSynchroTimer(); Thread.Sleep(4); // to check if the timer is working properly ... } The problem seems to be comming from the Thread.Sleep() call, as when I remove it everything works. The ObjectSimulator somehow doesn't execute the DataReceived event callback. How can I resolve this issue?

    Read the article

  • How to use CriticalSection - MFC?

    - by mapples
    I' am working on a small example and am a bit of curious using criticalsection in my example. What I'am doing is,I have a CStringArray(which has 10 elements added to it).I want to copy these 10 elements(string) to another CStringArray(am doing this to understand threading and Critical section),I have created 2 threads,Thread1 will copy the first 5 element to another CStringArray and Thread2 will copy the rest.Here two CStringArray are being used,I know only 1 thread can access it at a time.I wanted to know how this can be solved by using criticalsection or any other method. void CThreadingEx4Dlg::OnBnClickedOk() { // TODO: Add your control notification handler code here thread1 = AfxBeginThread((AFX_THREADPROC)MyThreadFunction1,this); thread2 = AfxBeginThread((AFX_THREADPROC)MyThreadFunction2,this); } UINT MyThreadFunction1(LPARAM lparam) { CThreadingEx4Dlg* pthis = (CThreadingEx4Dlg*)lparam; pthis->MyFunction(0,5); return 0; } UINT MyThreadFunction2(LPARAM lparam) { CThreadingEx4Dlg* pthis = (CThreadingEx4Dlg*)lparam; pthis->MyFunction(6,10); return 0; } void CThreadingEx4Dlg::MyFunction(int minCount,int maxCount) { for(int i=minCount;i<=maxCount;i++) { CString temp; temp = myArray.GetAt(i); myShiftArray.Add(temp); } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >