Search Results

Search found 8588 results on 344 pages for 'thread abort'.

Page 58/344 | < Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >

  • State machines in C#

    - by Sir Psycho
    Hi, I'm trying to work out what's going on with this code. I have two threads iterating over the range and I'm trying to understand what is happening when the second thread calls GetEnumerator(). This line in particular (T current = start;), seems to spawn a new 'instance' in this method by the second thread. Seeing that there is only one instance of the DateRange class, I'm trying to understand why this works. Thanks in advance. class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var daterange = new DateRange(DateTime.Now, DateTime.Now.AddDays(10), new TimeSpan(24, 0, 0)); var ts1 = new ThreadStart(delegate { foreach (var date in daterange) { Console.WriteLine("Thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " " + date); } }); var ts2 = new ThreadStart(delegate { foreach (var date in daterange) { Console.WriteLine("Thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " " + date); } }); Thread t1 = new Thread(ts1); Thread t2 = new Thread(ts2); t1.Start(); Thread.Sleep(4000); t2.Start(); Console.Read(); } } public class DateRange : Range<DateTime> { public DateTime Start { get; private set; } public DateTime End { get; private set; } public TimeSpan SkipValue { get; private set; } public DateRange(DateTime start, DateTime end, TimeSpan skip) : base(start, end) { SkipValue = skip; } public override DateTime GetNextElement(DateTime current) { return current.Add(SkipValue); } } public abstract class Range<T> : IEnumerable<T> where T : IComparable<T> { readonly T start; readonly T end; public Range(T start, T end) { if (start.CompareTo(end) > 0) throw new ArgumentException("Start value greater than end value"); this.start = start; this.end = end; } public abstract T GetNextElement(T currentElement); public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() { T current = start; do { Thread.Sleep(1000); yield return current; current = GetNextElement(current); } while (current.CompareTo(end) < 1); } System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() { return GetEnumerator(); } }

    Read the article

  • jQuery error when aborting an ajax call only in Internet Explorer

    - by Rob Crowell
    When mousing over an image in a jcarousel, my site displays a popup whose contents are loaded via ajax. I'm doing what I thought was fairly straightforward; keeping a handle to the xhrRequest object, and aborting the existing one before making a new request. It works great in all browsers except IE, where I receive an error "Object doesn't support this property or method" Here's the code that is triggering it: function showPopup { // ... code snipped ... // cancel the existing xhr request if (showPopup.xhrRequest != null) { showPopup.xhrRequest.abort(); showPopup.xhrRequest = null; } showPopup.xhrRequest = $.ajax({url: url, type: "GET", success:function(data) { $("#popup-content").html(data); } }); // ... code snipped ... } showPopup.xhrRequest = null; Works great in Firefox and Chrome. I traced the error down to this bit of code in jquery.js inside the ajax function (line 5233 in my copy of jQuery): // Override the abort handler, if we can (IE doesn't allow it, but that's OK) // Opera doesn't fire onreadystatechange at all on abort try { var oldAbort = xhr.abort; xhr.abort = function() { if (xhr ) { oldAbort.call( xhr ); } onreadystatechange( "abort" ); } catch(e) { } The specific error occurs on the oldAbort.call( xhr ) line. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Basic Java Multi-Threading Question

    - by Veered
    When an object is instantiated in Java, is it bound to the thread that instantiated in? Because when I anonymously implement an interface in one thread, and pass it to another thread to be run, all of its methods are run in the original thread. If they are bound to their creation thread, is there anyway to create an object that will run in whatever thread calls it?

    Read the article

  • Using SetThreadAffinityMask function imported from kernel32.dll in C # code.

    - by DotNetBeginner
    I am trying to set Thread Affinity using SetThreadAffinityMask function imported from kernel32.dll in C # code of mine. This is how I import SetThreadAffinityMask function from "kernel32.dll" in my C# .net code [DllImport("kernel32.dll")] static extern IntPtr SetThreadAffinityMask(IntPtr hThread, IntPtr dwThreadAffinityMask); I am creating 3 threads Thread t1=new Thread(some delegate); Thread t2=new Thread(some delegate); Thread t3=new Thread(some delegate); I wish to set Thread affinity for t1,t2 & t3 for which I am using SetThreadAffinityMask function. But I am not getting how to pass parameters to this function. SetThreadAffinityMask takes two parameters 1. HANDLE hThread 2. DWORD_PTR dwThreadAffinityMask Please help me in using SetThreadAffinityMask function in C# Thanks in advance !

    Read the article

  • C# Is it possible to interrupt a specific thread inside a ThreadPool?

    - by Lirik
    Suppose that I've queued a work item in a ThreadPool, but the work item blocks if there is no data to process (reading from a BlockingQueue). If the queue is empty and there will be no more work going into the queue, then I must call the Thread.Interrupt method if I want to interrupt the blocking task, but how does one do the same thing with a ThreadPool? The code might look like this: void Run() { try { while(true) { blockingQueue.Dequeue(); doSomething(); } } finally { countDownLatch.Signal(); } } I'm aware that the best thing to do in this situation is use a regular Thread, but I'm wondering if there is a ThreadPool equivalent way to interrupt a work item.

    Read the article

  • Does the chunk of the System.Collections.Concurrent.Partitioner need to be thread safe?

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I am working with the Parallel libraries in .net 4 and I am creating a Partitioner and the example shown in the MSDN only has a chunk size of 1 (every time a new result is retrieved it hits the data source instead of the local cache. The version I am writing will pull 10000 SQL rows at a time then feed the rows from the cache until it is empty then pull another batch. Each partition in the Partitioner has its own chunk. I know every time I call to the IEnumerator in from the SQL data-source that needs to be thread safe but for use in a Parallel.ForEach do I need to make every call to the cache for the chunking thread safe?

    Read the article

  • how to pause and stop a changing ImageView

    - by user270811
    hi, i have an ImageView in which the picture switches every 5s, i am trying to add a pause and resume button that can stop and restart the action. i am using a Handler, Runnable, and postDelay() for image switch, and i put the code on onResume. i am thinking about using wait and notify for the pause and resume, but that would mean creating an extra thread. so far for the thread, i have this: class RecipeDisplayThread extends Thread { boolean pleaseWait = false; // This method is called when the thread runs public void run() { while (true) { // Do work // Check if should wait synchronized (this) { while (pleaseWait) { try { wait(); } catch (Exception e) { } } } // Do work } } } and in the main activity's onCreate(): Button pauseButton = (Button) findViewById(R.id.pause); pauseButton.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() { public void onClick(View view) { while (true) { synchronized (thread) { thread.pleaseWait = true; } } } }); Button resumeButton = (Button) findViewById(R.id.resume); resumeButton.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() { public void onClick(View view) { while (true) { // Resume the thread synchronized (thread) { thread.pleaseWait = false; thread.notify(); } } } }); the pause button seems to work, but then after that i can't press any other button, such as the resume button. thanks.

    Read the article

  • {DCC Warning} W1036 Variable '$frame' might not have been initialized?

    - by Gad D Lord
    Any ideas why I get this warning in Delphi XE: [DCC Warning] Form1.pas(250): W1036 Variable '$frame' might not have been initialized procedure TForm1.Action1Execute(Sender: TObject); var Thread: TThread; begin ... Thread := TThread.CreateAnonymousThread( procedure{Anonymos}() procedure ShowLoading(const Show: Boolean); begin /// <------------- WARNING IS GIVEN FOR THIS LINE (line number 250) Thread.Synchronize(Thread, procedure{Anonymous}() begin ... Button1.Enabled := not Show; ... end ); end; var i: Integer; begin ShowLoading(true); try Thread.Synchronize(Thread, procedure{Anonymous}() begin ... // some UI updates end Thread.Synchronize(Thread, procedure{Anonymous}() begin ... // some UI updates end ); finally ShowLoading(false); end; end ).NameThread('Some Thread Name'); Thread.Start; end; I do not have anywhere in my code a variable names frame nor $frame. I am even not sure how $frame with $ sign can be a valid identifier. Smells like compiler magic to me. PS: Of course the real life xosw is having other than Form1, Button1, Action1 names.

    Read the article

  • C# WinForms MultiThreading in Loop

    - by Goober
    Scenario I have a background worker in my application that runs off and does a bunch of processing. I specifically used this implementation so as to keep my User Interface fluid and prevent it from freezing up. I want to keep the background worker, but inside that thread, spawn off ONLY 3 MORE threads - making them share the processing (currently the worker thread just loops through and processes each asset one-by-one. However I would like to speed this up but using only a limited number of threads. Question Given the code below, how can I get the loop to choose a thread that is free, and then essentially wait if there isn't one free before it continues. CODE foreach (KeyValuePair<int, LiveAsset> kvp in laToHaganise) { Haganise h = new Haganise(kvp.Value, busDate, inputMktSet, outputMktSet, prodType, noOfAssets, bulkSaving); h.DoWork(); } Thoughts I'm guessing that I would have to start off by creating 3 new threads, but my concern is that if I'm instantiating a new Haganise object each time - how can I pass the correct "h" object to the correct thread..... Thread firstThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(h.DoWork)); Thread secondThread =new Thread(new ThreadStart(h.DoWork)); Thread thirdThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(h.DoWork)); Help greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to fetch data for AutoCompleteTextView in separate thread?

    - by Laimoncijus
    For my AutoCompleteTextView I need to fetch the data from a webservice. As it can take a little time I do not want UI thread to be not responsive, so I need somehow to fetch the data in a separate thread. For example, while fetching data from SQLite DB, it is very easy done with CursorAdapter method - runQueryOnBackgroundThread. I was looking around to other adapters like ArrayAdapter, BaseAdapter, but could not find anything similar... Is there an easy way how to achieve this? I cannot simply use ArrayAdapter directly, as the suggestions list is dynamic - I always fetch the suggestions list depending on user input, so it cannot be pre-fetched and cached for further use... If someone could give some tips or examples on this topic - would be great!

    Read the article

  • Simple multi-threading - combining statements to two lines.

    - by Adam
    If I have: ThreadStart starter = delegate { MessageBox.Show("Test"); }; new Thread(starter).Start(); How can I combine this into one line of code? I've tried: new Thread(delegate { MessageBox.Show("Test"); }).Start(); But I get this error: The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'System.Threading.Thread.Thread(System.Threading.ThreadStart)' and 'System.Threading.Thread.Thread(System.Threading.ParameterizedThreadStart)'

    Read the article

  • JDBC transaction dead-lock solution required?

    - by user49767
    It's a scenario described my friend and challenged to find solution. He is using Oracle database and JDBC connection with read committed as transaction isolation level. In one of the transaction, he updates a record and executes selects statement and commits the transaction. when everything happening within single thread, things are fine. But when multiple requests are handled, dead-lock happens. Thread-A updates a record. Thread B updates another record. Thread-A issues select statement and waits for Thread-B's transaction to complete the commit operation. Thread-B issues select statement and waits for Thread-A's transaction to complete the commit operation. Now above causes dead-lock. Since they use command pattern, the base framework allows to issue commit only once (at the end of all the db operation), so they are unable to issue commit immediately after select statement. My argument was Thread-A supposed to select all the records which are committed and hence should not be issue. But he said that Thread-A will surely wait till Thread-B commits the record. is that true? What are all the ways, to avoid the above issue? is it possible to change isolation-level? (without changing underlying java framework) Little information about base framework, it is something similar to Struts action, their each and every request handled by one action, transaction begins before execution and commits after execution.

    Read the article

  • .NET: Best way to execute a lambda on UI thread after a delay?

    - by Scott Bussinger
    I had a situation come up that required running a lambda expression on the UI thread after a delay. I thought of several ways to do this and finally settled on this approach Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Thread.Sleep(1000)) .ContinueWith((t) => textBlock.Text="Done",TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext()); But I'm wondering if there's an easier way that I missed. Any suggestions for a shorter, simpler or easier technique? Assume .NET 4 is available.

    Read the article

  • C# How to pause/suspend a thread then continue it?

    - by Russ K
    I am making an application in C# which uses a winform as the GUI and a separate thread which is running in the background automatically changing things. Ex: public void run() { while(true) { printMessageOnGui("Hey"); Thread.Sleep(2000); . . } } How would I make it pause anywhere in the loop, because one iteration of the loop takes around 30 seconds. So I wouldnt want to pause it after its done one loop, I want to pause it on time. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • JAVA: 500 Worker Threads, what kind of thread pool?

    - by Submerged
    I am wondering if this is the best way to do this. I have about 500 threads that run indefinitely, but Thread.sleep for a minute when done one cycle of processing. ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(list.size()+1); for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) { es.execute(coreAppVector.elementAt(i)); //coreAppVector is a vector of extends thread objects } I do need a separate threads for each running task, so changing the architecture isn't an option. I tried making my threadPool size equal to Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() which attempted to run all 500 threads, but only let 8 (4xhyperthreading) of them execute. The other threads wouldn't surrender and let other threads have their turn. I tried putting in a wait() and notify(), but still no luck. If anyone has a simple example or some tips, I would be grateful!

    Read the article

  • How to Stop Current Playing Song When using one thread with JLayer?

    - by mcnemesis
    I recently used a solution to the one-thread-at-a-time problem whe using Jlayer to play mp3 songs in Java. But this solution by Kaleb Brasee didn't hint at how you could stop the player, i.e how could one then call player.close()? Kaleb's code was: Executor executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); executor.execute(new Runnable() { public void run() { /* do something */ } }); and this is the code I put in run() if(player != null) player.close(); try{ player = new Player(new FileInputStream(musicD.getPath())); player.play(); }catch(Exception e){} The problem is that much as this solves the problem of keeping the gui active while the music plays (in only one other thread -- what i'd wanted), I can't start playing another song :-( What could I do?

    Read the article

  • How do I create a thread-safe write-once read-many value in Java?

    - by Software Monkey
    This is a problem I encounter frequently in working with more complex systems and which I have never figured out a good way to solve. It usually involves variations on the theme of a shared object whose construction and initialization are necessarily two distinct steps. This is generally because of architectural requirements, similar to applets, so answers that suggest I consolidate construction and initialization are not useful. By way of example, let's say I have a class that is structured to fit into an application framework like so: public class MyClass { private /*ideally-final*/ SomeObject someObject; MyClass() { someObject=null; } public void startup() { someObject=new SomeObject(...arguments from environment which are not available until startup is called...); } public void shutdown() { someObject=null; // this is not necessary, I am just expressing the intended scope of someObject explicitly } } I can't make someObject final since it can't be set until startup() is invoked. But I would really like it to reflect it's write-once semantics and be able to directly access it from multiple threads, preferably avoiding synchronization. The idea being to express and enforce a degree of finalness, I conjecture that I could create a generic container, like so: public class WoRmObject<T> { private T object; WoRmObject() { object=null; } public WoRmObject set(T val) { object=val; return this; } public T get() { return object; } } and then in MyClass, above, do: private final WoRmObject<SomeObject> someObject; MyClass() { someObject=new WoRmObject<SomeObject>(); } public void startup() { someObject.set(SomeObject(...arguments from environment which are not available until startup is called...)); } Which raises some questions for me: Is there a better way, or existing Java object (would have to be available in Java 4)? Is this thread-safe provided that no other thread accesses someObject.get() until after it's set() has been called. The other threads will only invoke methods on MyClass between startup() and shutdown() - the framework guarantees this. Given the completely unsynchronized WoRmObject container, it is ever possible under either JMM to see a value of object which is neither null nor a reference to a SomeObject? In other words, does has the JMM always guaranteed that no thread can observe the memory of an object to be whatever values happened to be on the heap when the object was allocated.

    Read the article

  • gae error:AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'user_is_member'

    - by zjm1126
    class Thread(db.Model): members = db.StringListProperty() def user_is_member(self, user): return str(user) in self.members and thread = Thread.get(db.Key.from_path('Thread', int(id))) is_member = thread.user_is_member(user) but the error is : Traceback (most recent call last): File "D:\Program Files\Google\google_appengine\google\appengine\ext\webapp\__init__.py", line 511, in __call__ handler.get(*groups) File "D:\Program Files\Google\google_appengine\google\appengine\ext\webapp\util.py", line 62, in check_login handler_method(self, *args) File "D:\zjm_code\forum_blog_gae\main.py", line 222, in get is_member = thread.user_is_member(user) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'user_is_member' why ? thanks

    Read the article

  • Why does every thread in my application use a different hibernate session?

    - by Ittai
    Hi, I have a web-application which uses hibernate and for some reason every thread (httprequest or other threads related to queueing) uses a different session. I've implemented a HibernateSessionFactory class which looks like this: public class HibernateSessionFactory { private static final ThreadLocal<Session> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Session>(); private static Configuration configuration = new AnnotationConfiguration(); private static org.hibernate.SessionFactory sessionFactory; static { try { configuration.configure(configFile); sessionFactory = configuration.buildSessionFactory(); } catch (Exception e) {} } private HibernateSessionFactory() {} public static Session getSession() throws HibernateException { Session session = (Session) threadLocal.get(); if (session == null || !session.isOpen()) { if (sessionFactory == null) { rebuildSessionFactory();//This method basically does what the static init block does } session = (sessionFactory != null) ? sessionFactory.openSession(): null; threadLocal.set(session); } return session; } //More non relevant methods here. Now from my testing it seems that the threadLocal member is indeed initialized only once when the class is first loaded by the JVM but for some reason when different threads access the getSession() method they use different sessions. When a thread first accesses this class (Session) threadLocal.get(); will return null but as expected all other access requests will yeild the same session. I'm not sure how this can be happening as the threadLocal variable is final and the method threadLocal.set(session) is only used in the above context (which I'm 99.9% sure has to yeild a non null session as I would have encountered a NullPointerException at a different part of my app). I'm not sure this is relevant but these are the main parts of my hibernate.cfg.xml file: <hibernate-configuration> <session-factory> <property name="connection.url">someURL</property> <property name="connection.driver_class"> com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerDriver</property> <property name="dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.SQLServerDialect</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.isolation">1</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.username">User</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.password">Password</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.pool_size">10</property> <property name="show_sql">false</property> <property name="current_session_context_class">thread</property> <property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto">update</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache">false</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.provider_class">org.hibernate.cache.NoCacheProvider</property> <!-- Mapping files --> I'd appreciate any help granted and of course if anyone has any questions I'd be happy to clarify. Ittai

    Read the article

  • C#: Populating a UI using separate threads.

    - by Andrew
    I'm trying to make some sense out of an application Ive been handed in order to track down the source of an error. Theres a bit of code (simplified here) which creates four threads which in turn populate list views on the main form. Each method gets data from the database and retrieves graphics from a resource dll in order to directly populate an imagelist and listview. From what Ive read on here (link) updating UI elements from any thread other than the UI thread should not be done, and yet this appears to work? Thread t0 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(PopulateListView1)); t0.IsBackground = true; t0.Start(); Thread t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(PopulateListView2)); t1.Start(); Thread t2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(PopulateListView3)); t2.Start(); Thread t3 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(PopulateListView4)); t3.Start(); The error itself is a System.InvalidOperationException "Image cannot be added to the ImageList." which has me wondering if the above code is linked in some way. Iis this method of populating the UI recommended and if not what are the possible complications resulting from it?

    Read the article

  • Problem with basic program using Boost Threads in c++

    - by Eternal Learner
    I have a simple program which creates and executes as thread using boost threads in c++. #include<boost/thread/thread.hpp> #include<iostream> void hello() { std::cout<<"Hello, i am a thread"<<std::endl; } int main() { boost::thread th1(&hello); th1.join(); } The compiler throws an error against the th1.join() line. It says " Multiple markers at this line - undefined reference to `boost::thread::join()' - undefined reference to `boost::thread::~thread()' "

    Read the article

  • Any techniques to interrupt, kill, or otherwise unwind (releasing synchronization locks) a single de

    - by gojomo
    I have a long-running process where, due to a bug, a trivial/expendable thread is deadlocked with a thread which I would like to continue, so that it can perform some final reporting that would be hard to reproduce in another way. Of course, fixing the bug for future runs is the proper ultimate resolution. Of course, any such forced interrupt/kill/stop of any thread is inherently unsafe and likely to cause other unpredictable inconsistencies. (I'm familiar with all the standard warnings and the reasons for them.) But still, since the only alternative is to kill the JVM process and go through a more lengthy procedure which would result in a less-complete final report, messy/deprecated/dangerous/risky/one-time techniques are exactly what I'd like to try. The JVM is Sun's 1.6.0_16 64-bit on Ubuntu, and the expendable thread is waiting-to-lock an object monitor. Can an OS signal directed to an exact thread create an InterruptedException in the expendable thread? Could attaching with gdb, and directly tampering with JVM data or calling JVM procedures allow a forced-release of the object monitor held by the expendable thread? Would a Thread.interrupt() from another thread generate a InterruptedException from the waiting-to-lock frame? (With some effort, I can inject an arbitrary beanshell script into the running system.) Can the deprecated Thread.stop() be sent via JMX or any other remote-injection method? Any ideas appreciated, the more 'dangerous', the better! And, if your suggestion has worked in personal experience in a similar situation, the best!

    Read the article

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