Search Results

Search found 9982 results on 400 pages for 'state monad'.

Page 7/400 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Visualize flowchart diagram with multiple end symbols

    - by platzhirsch
    I am looking for a standardize way to visualize the following hierarchical logic: The state of the thread is represented by the answers to the hierarchical set of question You can read this listing like a flowchart, you iterate over the questions decide, go one step deeper and so on. Therefore I thought the best way to visualize it, using a flowchart. The problem is, in this hierarchical set it is possible to end in more than one state and its totally valid. I have never seen a flowchart where you can enter more than one state. Is it still possible and I am missing the right symbol to present this logic or are flowchart not fitting anyway? What other graphical representation could I use, is there something fitting in UML? A non-deterministic state machine seems not to be intuitive enough, transfering it into a deterministic state machine would result in to many states, and so on.

    Read the article

  • How to Easily Reset a Computer Back to a Clean State Each Time It Boots

    - by Chris Hoffman
    When you’re managing a public computer, you need a special kind of tool. You need a way to reset that computer back to a clean state every time it boots so no one can make any harmful changes. Commercial solutions like Deep Freeze offer this feature, and Microsoft once offered it via its Windows Steady State tool for Windows XP and Vista. However, Windows Steady State has been discontinued and doesn’t work with Windows 7. We’ll be using Reboot Restore Rx for this, as it supports both Windows 7 and Windows 8. Steadier State is another solid option, but it only works in Windows 7, and even then only with Windows 7 Enterprise and Ultimate.    

    Read the article

  • Issues with touch buttons in XNA (Release state to be precise)

    - by Aditya
    I am trying to make touch buttons in WP8 with all the states (Pressed, Released, Moved), but the TouchLocationState.Released is not working. Here's my code: Class variables: bool touching = false; int touchID; Button tempButton; Button is a separate class with a method to switch states when touched. The Update method contains the following code: TouchCollection touchCollection = TouchPanel.GetState(); if (!touching && touchCollection.Count > 0) { touching = true; foreach (TouchLocation location in touchCollection) { for (int i = 0; i < menuButtons.Count; i++) { touchID = location.Id; // store the ID of current touch Point touchLocation = new Point((int)location.Position.X, (int)location.Position.Y); // create a point Button button = menuButtons[i]; if (GetMenuEntryHitBounds(button).Contains(touchLocation)) // a method which returns a rectangle. { button.SwitchState(true); // change the button state tempButton = button; // store the pressed button for accessing later } } } } else if (touchCollection.Count == 0) // clears the state of all buttons if no touch is detected { touching = false; for (int i = 0; i < menuButtons.Count; i++) { Button button = menuButtons[i]; button.SwitchState(false); } } menuButtons is a list of buttons on the menu. A separate loop (within the Update method) after the touched variable is true if (touching) { TouchLocation location; TouchLocation prevLocation; if (touchCollection.FindById(touchID, out location)) { if (location.TryGetPreviousLocation(out prevLocation)) { Point point = new Point((int)location.Position.X, (int)location.Position.Y); if (prevLocation.State == TouchLocationState.Pressed && location.State == TouchLocationState.Released) { if (GetMenuEntryHitBounds(tempButton).Contains(point)) // Execute the button action. I removed the excess } } } } The code for switching the button state is working fine but the code where I want to trigger the action is not. location.State == TouchLocationState.Released mostly ends up being false. (Even after I release the touch, it has a value of TouchLocationState.Moved) And what is more irritating is that it sometimes works! I am really confused and stuck for days now. Is this the right way? If yes then where am I going wrong? Or is there some other more effective way to do this? PS: I also posted this question on stack overflow then realized this question is more appropriate in gamedev. Sorry if it counts as being redundant.

    Read the article

  • how to save and load the state of a game in scheme

    - by user3667664
    I'm creating the game of chess in scheme, but do not know how to save and load game state is a part I have this code (define-struct ficha(color se-movio? tipo-ficha )) ;;tablero lista de listas de fichas (define-struct estado (tablero turno fichaSel)) (define bpawn (bitmap "b-peon.png")) (define brook (bitmap "b-torre.png")) (define bcaballo (bitmap "b-caballo.png")) (define bbish (bitmap "b-arfil.png")) (define bquee (bitmap "b-reina.png")) (define bking (bitmap "b-rey.png")) (define wpawn (bitmap "w-peon.png")) (define wrook (bitmap "w-torre.png")) (define wcaballo (bitmap "w-caballo.png")) (define wbish (bitmap "w-arfil.png")) (define wquee (bitmap "w-reina.png")) (define wking (bitmap "w-rey.png")) (define board (bitmap "board.jpg")) This is the board that is a list of lists (define tableroini (list (list torreb caballob arfilb reinab reyb arfilb caballob torreb) (list peonb peonb peonb peonb peonb peonb peonb peonb) (list empty empty empty empty empty empty empty empty) (list empty empty empty empty empty empty empty empty) (list empty empty empty empty empty empty empty empty) (list empty empty empty empty empty empty empty empty) (list peonw peonw peonw peonw peonw peonw peonw peonw) (list torrew caballow arfilw reinaw reyw arfilw caballow torrew))) I did this to save the state of the game: (define (Guardar-en-archivo archivo) (write-file (string-append Subcarpeta archivo ".txt") "game state" )) But not as you insert the game state on "game state" for me to save the game How I can do this ?

    Read the article

  • State of Texas delivers Private Cloud Services powered by Oracle Technology

    - by Anand Akela
    State of Texas moved to private cloud infrastructure and delivering Infrastructure as a Service , Database as a Service and other Platform as a Service offerings to their 28 state agencies. Todd Kimbriel, Director of eGovernment Division at State of Texas attended Oracle Open World and talked with Oracle's John Foley about their private cloud services offering. Later, Todd participated in the keynote panel of Database as a Service Online Forum> along with Carl Olofson,IDC analyst , Juan Loaiza,SVP Oracle and couple of other Oracle customers. He discussed the IT challenges of  government organizations like state of Texas and the benefits of transitioning to Private cloud including database as a service .

    Read the article

  • script engine with no global environment (java)

    - by user1886930
    I am curious about how global variables are handled by script engines. I am looking for a script engine that does not preserve the state of global variables upon invocation. Are there such engines out there? We are looking for a scripting language we can use under the script engine API for Java. When making multiple invocations of a script engine, top-level calls to eval() or evaluate() method preserves the state of global variables, meaning that consequent calls to eval() will use the global variables as they were left by the last invocation. Is there a script engine that does not preserve the state, or provides the ability to reset the state, so that global variables are at their initial state every time the script engine is invoked?

    Read the article

  • SNMP closed state in CentOS

    - by anksoWX
    I'm having a problem here, I've added to my IPtables rules this: -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 161 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 161 -j ACCEPT but when I scan with nmap or any other tool it says this: Not shown: 998 filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 161/tcp closed snmp also when I am doing: netstat -apn | grep snmpd tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:199 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 3669/snmpd<br> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:161 0.0.0.0:* 3669/snmpd<br> unix 2 [ ] DGRAM 226186 3669/snmpd Also: service iptables status Table: filter Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination 1 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 2 ACCEPT icmp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 3 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 4 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:161 5 ACCEPT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW udp dpt:161 6 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:22 7 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-host-prohibited Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination 1 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-host-prohibited Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination Any idea what's going on? There is no UDP in closed/open state. what do I have to do?

    Read the article

  • Pure functional programming and game state

    - by Fu86
    Is there a common technique to handle state (in general) in a functional programming language? There are solutions in every (functional) programming language to handle global state, but I want to avoid this as far as I could. All state in a pure functional manner are function parameters. So I need to put the whole game state (a gigantic hashmap with the world, players, positions, score, assets, enemies, ...)) as a parameter to all functions which wants to manipulate the world on a given input or trigger. The function itself picks the relevant information from the gamestate blob, do something with it, manipulate the gamestate and return the gamestate. But this looks like a poor mans solution for the problem. If I put the whole gamestate into all functions, there is no benefit for me in contrast to global variables or the imperative approach. I could put just the relevant information into the functions and return the actions which will be taken for the given input. And one single function apply all the actions to the gamestate. But most functions need a lot of "relevant" information. move() need the object position, the velocity, the map for collision, position of all enemys, current health, ... So this approach does not seem to work either. So my question is how do I handle the massive amount of state in a functional programming language -- especially for game development?

    Read the article

  • State machine interpreters

    - by saadtaame
    I wrote my own state machine tool in C and at this point I'm faced with two choices for specifying state machines. Crafting a little language and writing a interpreter. Writing a compiler for that language. I know the advantages/disadvantages of each. I'd like to know what choices game programmers have made for their games. If you've used a state machine in your game in any form, I'd be interested in knowing how you did it.

    Read the article

  • is it valid that a state machine can have more than one possible state for some transition?

    - by shankbond
    I have a requirement for a workflow which I am trying to model as a state machine, I see that there is more than one outcome of a given transition(or activity). Is it valid for a state machine to have more than one possible states, but only one state will be true at a given time? Note: This is my first attempt to model a state machine. Eg. might be: s1-t1-s2 s1-t1-s3 s1-t1-s4 where s1, s2, s3, s4 are states and t1 is transition/activity. A fictitious real world example might be: For a human, there can be two states: hungry, not hungry A basket can have only one item from: apple, orange. So, to model it we will have: hungry-pick from basket-apple found hungry-pick from basket-orange found apple found-eat-not hungry orange found-take juice out of it and then drink- not hungry

    Read the article

  • Iptables state tracking

    - by complexgeek
    Hi there. I've just taken over administration of a fairly complex firewall ruleset for a firewall box running Fedora Core 12, and there's one thing about it that is puzzling me. When I run nmap on the gateway from outside the network, I see all the expected services, but also sunrpc on port 111. The INPUT chain has DEFAULT DROP set, and there is no rule allowing port 111. As best I can tell (watching the packet counters before/during/after the scan) it's being allowed by the rule: "-m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT" but I don't understand why a brand new TCP connection would be considered RELATED or ESTABLISHED. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. EDIT: Conntrack modules: nf_conntrack_netlink 14925 0 nfnetlink 3479 1 nf_conntrack_netlink nf_conntrack_irc 5206 1 nf_nat_irc nf_conntrack_proto_udplite 3138 0 nf_conntrack_h323 62110 1 nf_nat_h323 nf_conntrack_proto_dccp 6878 0 nf_conntrack_sip 16921 1 nf_nat_sip nf_conntrack_proto_sctp 11131 0 nf_conntrack_pptp 10673 1 nf_nat_pptp nf_conntrack_sane 5458 0 nf_conntrack_proto_gre 6574 1 nf_conntrack_pptp nf_conntrack_amanda 2796 1 nf_nat_amanda nf_conntrack_ftp 11741 1 nf_nat_ftp nf_conntrack_tftp 4665 1 nf_nat_tftp nf_conntrack_netbios_ns 1534 0 nf_conntrack_ipv6 18504 2 ipv6 279399 40 ip6t_REJECT,nf_conntrack_ipv6 INPUT chain on the filter table: -A INPUT -s 192.168.200.10/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 127.0.0.0/8 -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --sport 67:68 --dport 67:68 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d 192.168.200.5/32 -i eth0 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d 192.168.1.2/32 -i eth0 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d {public_ip}/32 -i ppp0 -p tcp -m multiport --dports 22,80,443 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d {public_ip}/32 -i ppp0 -p tcp -m multiport --sports 22,25,80,443 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d {public_ip}/32 -i ppp0 -p udp -m udp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d {public_ip}/32 -i ppp0 -p udp -m udp --sport 1194 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d {public_ip}/32 -i ppp0 -p udp -m multiport --sports 53,123 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d {public_ip}/32 -i ppp0 -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d {public_ip}/32 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT eth0 is connected to the internal network, eth3 is connected to an ADSL modem in bridge mode, ppp0 is the WAN connection tunneled over eth3.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible that solid state drives (or any faster drive) will make common applications faster even if they are cached?

    - by leladax
    I assumed that solid state drives are insignificant after, say, Firefox is fully brought up and no important disk activity after that is going on. However, I wonder if some kind of 'cached from the disk to the CPU' activity is going on that may make solid state drives (or any faster drive) better. Then again, I suspect that may be depended only on the Bus (or some kind of cache memory drives have). Hrm..

    Read the article

  • Is do-notation specific to "base:GHC.Base.Monad"?

    - by yairchu
    The idea that the standard Monad class is flawed and that it should actually extend Functor or Pointed is floating around. I'm not necessarily claiming that it is the right thing to do, but suppose that one was trying to do it: import Prelude hiding (Monad(..)) class Functor m => Monad m where return :: a -> m a join :: m (m a) -> m a join = (>>= id) (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b a >>= t = join (fmap t a) (>>) :: m a -> m b -> m b a >> b = a >>= const b So far so good, but then when trying to use do-notation: whileM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m () whileM iteration = do done <- iteration if done then return () else whileM iteration The compiler complains: Could not deduce (base:GHC.Base.Monad m) from the context (Monad m) Question: Does do-notation work only for base:GHC.Base.Monad? Is there a way to make it work with an alternative Monad class? Extra context: What I really want to do is replace base:Control.Arrow.Arrow with a "generalized" Arrow class: {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-} class Category a => Arrow a where type Pair a :: * -> * -> * arr :: (b -> c) -> a b c first :: a b c -> a (Pair a b d) (Pair a c d) second :: a b c -> a (Pair a d b) (Pair a d c) (***) :: a b c -> a b' c' -> a (Pair a b b') (Pair a c c') (&&&) :: a b c -> a b c' -> a b (Pair a c c') And then use the Arrow's proc-notation with my Arrow class, but that fails like in the example above of do-notation and Monad. I'll use mostly Either as my pair type constructor and not the (,) type constructor as with the current Arrow class. This might allow to make the code of my toy RTS game (cabal install DefendTheKind) much prettier.

    Read the article

  • Understanding C# async / await (1) Compilation

    - by Dixin
    Now the async / await keywords are in C#. Just like the async and ! in F#, this new C# feature provides great convenience. There are many nice documents talking about how to use async / await in specific scenarios, like using async methods in ASP.NET 4.5 and in ASP.NET MVC 4, etc. In this article we will look at the real code working behind the syntax sugar. According to MSDN: The async modifier indicates that the method, lambda expression, or anonymous method that it modifies is asynchronous. Since lambda expression / anonymous method will be compiled to normal method, we will focus on normal async method. Preparation First of all, Some helper methods need to make up. internal class HelperMethods { internal static int Method(int arg0, int arg1) { // Do some IO. WebClient client = new WebClient(); Enumerable.Repeat("http://weblogs.asp.net/dixin", 10) .Select(client.DownloadString).ToArray(); int result = arg0 + arg1; return result; } internal static Task<int> MethodTask(int arg0, int arg1) { Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => Method(arg0, arg1)); task.Start(); // Hot task (started task) should always be returned. return task; } internal static void Before() { } internal static void Continuation1(int arg) { } internal static void Continuation2(int arg) { } } Here Method() is a long running method doing some IO. Then MethodTask() wraps it into a Task and return that Task. Nothing special here. Await something in async method Since MethodTask() returns Task, let’s try to await it: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1); return result; } } Because we used await in the method, async must be put on the method. Now we get the first async method. According to the naming convenience, it is named MethodAsync. Of course a async method can be awaited. So we have a CallMethodAsync() to call MethodAsync(): internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); return result; } } After compilation, MethodAsync() and CallMethodAsync() becomes the same logic. This is the code of MethodAsyc(): internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { MethodAsyncStateMachine methodAsyncStateMachine = new MethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref methodAsyncStateMachine); return methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It just creates and starts a state machine, MethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Result; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaitor; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { if (this.State != 0) { this.awaitor = HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaitor.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaitor, ref this); return; } } else { this.State = -1; } this.Result = this.awaitor.GetResult(); } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); return; } this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.Result); } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine param0) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(param0); } } The generated code has been refactored, so it is readable and can be compiled. Several things can be observed here: The async modifier is gone, which shows, unlike other modifiers (e.g. static), there is no such IL/CLR level “async” stuff. It becomes a AsyncStateMachineAttribute. This is similar to the compilation of extension method. The generated state machine is very similar to the state machine of C# yield syntax sugar. The local variables (arg0, arg1, result) are compiled to fields of the state machine. The real code (await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1)) is compiled into MoveNext(): HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(). CallMethodAsync() will create and start its own state machine CallMethodAsyncStateMachine: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(CallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { CallMethodAsyncStateMachine callMethodAsyncStateMachine = new CallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref callMethodAsyncStateMachine); return callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } CallMethodAsyncStateMachine has the same logic as MethodAsyncStateMachine above. The detail of the state machine will be discussed soon. Now it is clear that: async /await is a C# language level syntax sugar. There is no difference to await a async method or a normal method. As long as a method returns Task, it is awaitable. State machine and continuation To demonstrate more details in the state machine, a more complex method is created: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; } } In this method: There are multiple awaits. There are code before the awaits, and continuation code after each await After compilation, this multi-await method becomes the same as above single-await methods: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine); return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It creates and starts one single state machine, MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Arg2; public int Arg3; public int ResultOfAwait1; public int ResultOfAwait2; public int ResultToReturn; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaiter; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { case -1: HelperMethods.Before(); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 0: this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 1; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 1: this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); this.ResultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.ResultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); } } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(stateMachine); } } Once again, the above state machine code is already refactored, but it still has a lot of things. More clean up can be done if we only keep the core logic, and the state machine can become very simple: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { // State: // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End public int State; public TaskCompletionSource<int> ResultToReturn; // int resultToReturn ... public int Arg0; // int Arg0 public int Arg1; // int arg1 public int Arg2; // int arg2 public int Arg3; // int arg3 public int ResultOfAwait1; // int resultOfAwait1 ... public int ResultOfAwait2; // int resultOfAwait2 ... private Task<int> currentTaskToAwait; /// <summary> /// Moves the state machine to its next state. /// </summary> public void MoveNext() // IAsyncStateMachine member. { try { switch (this.State) { // Original code is split by "await"s into "case"s: // case -1: // HelperMethods.Before(); // MethodAsync(Arg0, arg1); // case 0: // int resultOfAwait1 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); // MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); // case 1: // int resultOfAwait2 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); // int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // return resultToReturn; case -1: // -1 is begin. HelperMethods.Before(); // Code before 1st await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1); // 1st task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 0. this.State = 0; MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine that1 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => that1.MoveNext()); break; case 0: // Now 1st await is done. this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 1st await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); // Code after 1st await and before 2nd await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3); // 2nd task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 1. this.State = 1; MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine that2 = this; this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => that2.MoveNext()); break; case 1: // Now 2nd await is done. this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 2nd await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); // Code after 2nd await. int resultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; // Code after 2nd await. // End with resultToReturn. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetResult(resultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { // End with exception. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetException(exception); } } /// <summary> /// Configures the state machine with a heap-allocated replica. /// </summary> /// <param name="stateMachine">The heap-allocated replica.</param> [DebuggerHidden] public void SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) // IAsyncStateMachine member. { // No core logic. } } Only Task and TaskCompletionSource are involved in this version. And MultiCallMethodAsync() can be simplified to: [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, ResultToReturn = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(), // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext(); // Original code are moved into this method. return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.ResultToReturn.Task; } Now the whole state machine becomes very clean - it is about callback: Original code are split into pieces by “await”s, and each piece is put into each “case” in the state machine. Here the 2 awaits split the code into 3 pieces, so there are 3 “case”s. The “piece”s are chained by callback, that is done by Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(callback), or currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(callback) in the simplified code. A previous “piece” will end with a Task (which is to be awaited), when the task is done, it will callback the next “piece”. The state machine’s state works with the “case”s to ensure the code “piece”s executes one after another. Callback If we focus on the point of callback, the simplification  can go even further – the entire state machine can be completely purged, and we can just keep the code inside MoveNext(). Now MultiCallMethodAsync() becomes: internal static Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { TaskCompletionSource<int> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(); try { // Oringinal code begins. HelperMethods.Before(); MethodAsync(arg0, arg1).ContinueWith(await1 => { int resultOfAwait1 = await1.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); MethodAsync(arg2, arg3).ContinueWith(await2 => { int resultOfAwait2 = await2.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // Oringinal code ends. taskCompletionSource.SetResult(resultToReturn); }); }); } catch (Exception exception) { taskCompletionSource.SetException(exception); } return taskCompletionSource.Task; } Please compare with the original async / await code: HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; Yeah that is the magic of C# async / await: Await is not to wait. In a await expression, a Task object will be return immediately so that execution is not blocked. The continuation code is compiled as that Task’s callback code. When that task is done, continuation code will execute. Please notice that many details inside the state machine are omitted for simplicity, like context caring, etc. If you want to have a detailed picture, please do check out the source code of AsyncTaskMethodBuilder and TaskAwaiter.

    Read the article

  • Unable to make the session state request to the session state server.

    - by Angry_IT_Guru
    For about 4-5 months now, I seem to be having this sporadic issue--mainly during our busiest time of the day between 10:30-11:45AM, where all my Windows 2003 web servers in a Microsoft NLB cluster start throwing session state server errors. A sample error is below. System.Web.HttpException: Unable to make the session state request to the session state server. Please ensure that the ASP.NET State service is started and that the client and server ports are the same. If the server is on a remote machine, please ensure that it accepts remote requests by checking the value of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\aspnet_state\Parameters\AllowRemoteConnection. If the server is on the local machine, and if the before mentioned registry value does not exist or is set to 0, then the state server connection string must use either 'localhost' or '127.0.0.1' as the server name. at System.Web.SessionState.OutOfProcSessionStateStore.MakeRequest(StateProtocolVerb verb, String id, StateProtocolExclusive exclusiveAccess, Int32 extraFlags, Int32 timeout, Int32 lockCookie, Byte[] buf, Int32 cb, Int32 networkTimeout, SessionNDMakeRequestResults& results) at System.Web.SessionState.OutOfProcSessionStateStore.SetAndReleaseItemExclusive(HttpContext context, String id, SessionStateStoreData item, Object lockId, Boolean newItem) at System.Web.SessionState.SessionStateModule.OnReleaseState(Object source, EventArgs eventArgs) at System.Web.HttpApplication.SyncEventExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute() at System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean& completedSynchronously) Now I'm using ASP.NET State service on a centralized back-end Windows 2003 server that all servers communicate to. I was originally using SQL Server state for a couple years as well prior to having this issue. The problem with SQL wqas that when the issue occurred, it created a blocking situation which essentially impacted all users across all servers. The product company recommended that I use the standard ASP.NET State service as that was what they technically supported. Why this would make a difference is beyond me -- but I had no choice but to try it! I have attempted to create multiple application pools, adding additional servers, chaning TCP/IP timeout from 20 to 30 seconds, and even calling Microsoft ASP.NET product support, with very little success. I even recommended that they review whether they are using read-only session state instead of read/write per page request -- as I understand that this basically causes every page to make round-trips to state server even if state isn't being used on the page. Unfortunately, the application is developed by our product company and they insist that it is something with my environment because other clients do not have these sort of issues. However, I've talked to other clients and they tell me when they've seen issues like they, they've basically had to create another web farm. This issue almost seems like I've simply reached some architectural limit within the application... Microsoft's position on the issue is that the session state needs to be reduced and the returncode being reported back from the state server indicates buffers are full. To better understand the scope of issues (rather than wait for customers to call and complain), I installed ELMAH and configured it to send me e-mails when unhandled exceptions occur. I basically get 500-1000 e-mails during the time period of high activity! If any one has any other ideas I could try or better ways to troubleshoot, I'd appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • Restore and preserve UIViewController pushed from UINavigationController, no storyboard

    - by user2908112
    I try to restore a simple UIViewController that I pushed from my initial view controller. The first one is preserved, but the second one just disappear when relaunched. I don't use storyboard. I implement the protocol in every view controller and add the restorationIdentifier and restorationClass to each one of them. The second viewController inherit from a third viewController and is initialized from a xib file. I'm not sure if I need to implement the UIViewControllerRestoration to this third since I don't use it directly. My code looks like typically like this: - (id)initWithNibName:(NSString *)nibNameOrNil bundle:(NSBundle *)nibBundleOrNil { self = [super initWithNibName:nibNameOrNil bundle:nibBundleOrNil]; if (self) { // Custom initialization self.restorationIdentifier = @"EditNotificationViewController"; self.restorationClass = [self class]; } return self; } -(void)encodeRestorableStateWithCoder:(NSCoder *)coder { } -(void)decodeRestorableStateWithCoder:(NSCoder *)coder { } +(UIViewController *)viewControllerWithRestorationIdentifierPath:(NSArray *)identifierComponents coder:(NSCoder *)coder { EditNotificationViewController* envc = [[EditNotificationViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"SearchFormViewController" bundle:nil]; return envc; } Should perhaps the navigationController be subclassed so it too can inherit from UIViewControllerRestoration?

    Read the article

  • Samba server NETBIOS name not resolving, WINS support not working

    - by Eric
    When I try to connect to my CentOS 6.2 x86_64 server's samba shares using address \\REPO (NETBIOS name of REPO), it times out and shows an error; if I do so directly via IP, it works fine. Furthermore, my server does not work correctly as a WINS server despite my samba settings being correct for it (see below for details). If I stop the iptables service, things work properly. I'm using this page as a reference for which ports to use: http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/server_security.html Specifically: UDP/137 - used by nmbd UDP/138 - used by nmbd TCP/139 - used by smbd TCP/445 - used by smbd I really really really want to keep the secure iptables design I have below but just fix this particular problem. SMB.CONF [global] netbios name = REPO workgroup = AWESOME security = user encrypt passwords = yes # Use the native linux password database #passdb backend = tdbsam # Be a WINS server wins support = yes # Make this server a master browser local master = yes preferred master = yes os level = 65 # Disable print support load printers = no printing = bsd printcap name = /dev/null disable spoolss = yes # Restrict who can access the shares hosts allow = 127.0.0. 10.1.1. [public] path = /mnt/repo/public create mode = 0640 directory mode = 0750 writable = yes valid users = mangs repoman IPTABLES CONFIGURE SCRIPT # Remove all existing rules iptables -F # Set default chain policies iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP iptables -P OUTPUT DROP # Allow incoming SSH iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 22222 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 22222 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow incoming HTTP #iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT #iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow incoming Samba iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p udp --dport 137 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p udp --sport 137 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p udp --dport 138 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p udp --sport 138 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 139 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 139 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 445 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 445 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Make these rules permanent service iptables save service iptables restart**strong text**

    Read the article

  • Can Haskell's monads be thought of as using and returning a hidden state parameter?

    - by AJM
    I don't understand the exact algebra and theory behind Haskell's monads. However, when I think about functional programming in general I get the impression that state would be modelled by taking an initial state and generating a copy of it to represent the next state. This is like when one list is appended to another; neither list gets modified, but a third list is created and returned. Is it therefore valid to think of monadic operations as implicitly taking an initial state object as a parameter and implicitly returning a final state object? These state objects would be hidden so that the programmer doesn't have to worry about them and to control how they gets accessed. So, the programmer would not try to copy the object representing the IO stream as it was ten minutes ago. In other words, if we have this code: main = do putStrLn "Enter your name:" name <- getLine putStrLn ( "Hello " ++ name ) ...is it OK to think of the IO monad and the "do" syntax as representing this style of code? putStrLn :: IOState -> String -> IOState getLine :: IOState -> (IOState, String) main :: IOState -> IOState -- main returns an IOState we can call "state3" main state0 = putStrLn state2 ("Hello " ++ name) where (state2, name) = getLine state1 state1 = putStrLn state0 "Enter your name:"

    Read the article

  • Understanding C# async / await (1) Compilation

    - by Dixin
    Now the async / await keywords are in C#. Just like the async and ! in F#, this new C# feature provides great convenience. There are many nice documents talking about how to use async / await in specific scenarios, like using async methods in ASP.NET 4.5 and in ASP.NET MVC 4, etc. In this article we will look at the real code working behind the syntax sugar. According to MSDN: The async modifier indicates that the method, lambda expression, or anonymous method that it modifies is asynchronous. Since lambda expression / anonymous method will be compiled to normal method, we will focus on normal async method. Preparation First of all, Some helper methods need to make up. internal class HelperMethods { internal static int Method(int arg0, int arg1) { // Do some IO. WebClient client = new WebClient(); Enumerable.Repeat("http://weblogs.asp.net/dixin", 10) .Select(client.DownloadString).ToArray(); int result = arg0 + arg1; return result; } internal static Task<int> MethodTask(int arg0, int arg1) { Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => Method(arg0, arg1)); task.Start(); // Hot task (started task) should always be returned. return task; } internal static void Before() { } internal static void Continuation1(int arg) { } internal static void Continuation2(int arg) { } } Here Method() is a long running method doing some IO. Then MethodTask() wraps it into a Task and return that Task. Nothing special here. Await something in async method Since MethodTask() returns Task, let’s try to await it: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1); return result; } } Because we used await in the method, async must be put on the method. Now we get the first async method. According to the naming convenience, it is called MethodAsync. Of course a async method can be awaited. So we have a CallMethodAsync() to call MethodAsync(): internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); return result; } } After compilation, MethodAsync() and CallMethodAsync() becomes the same logic. This is the code of MethodAsyc(): internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { MethodAsyncStateMachine methodAsyncStateMachine = new MethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref methodAsyncStateMachine); return methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It just creates and starts a state machine MethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Result; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaitor; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { if (this.State != 0) { this.awaitor = HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaitor.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaitor, ref this); return; } } else { this.State = -1; } this.Result = this.awaitor.GetResult(); } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); return; } this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.Result); } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine param0) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(param0); } } The generated code has been cleaned up so it is readable and can be compiled. Several things can be observed here: The async modifier is gone, which shows, unlike other modifiers (e.g. static), there is no such IL/CLR level “async” stuff. It becomes a AsyncStateMachineAttribute. This is similar to the compilation of extension method. The generated state machine is very similar to the state machine of C# yield syntax sugar. The local variables (arg0, arg1, result) are compiled to fields of the state machine. The real code (await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1)) is compiled into MoveNext(): HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(). CallMethodAsync() will create and start its own state machine CallMethodAsyncStateMachine: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(CallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { CallMethodAsyncStateMachine callMethodAsyncStateMachine = new CallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref callMethodAsyncStateMachine); return callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } CallMethodAsyncStateMachine has the same logic as MethodAsyncStateMachine above. The detail of the state machine will be discussed soon. Now it is clear that: async /await is a C# level syntax sugar. There is no difference to await a async method or a normal method. A method returning Task will be awaitable. State machine and continuation To demonstrate more details in the state machine, a more complex method is created: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; } } In this method: There are multiple awaits. There are code before the awaits, and continuation code after each await After compilation, this multi-await method becomes the same as above single-await methods: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine); return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It creates and starts one single state machine, MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Arg2; public int Arg3; public int ResultOfAwait1; public int ResultOfAwait2; public int ResultToReturn; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaiter; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { case -1: HelperMethods.Before(); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 0: this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 1; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 1: this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); this.ResultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.ResultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); } } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(stateMachine); } } The above code is already cleaned up, but there are still a lot of things. More clean up can be done, and the state machine can be very simple: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { // State: // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End public int State; public TaskCompletionSource<int> ResultToReturn; // int resultToReturn ... public int Arg0; // int Arg0 public int Arg1; // int arg1 public int Arg2; // int arg2 public int Arg3; // int arg3 public int ResultOfAwait1; // int resultOfAwait1 ... public int ResultOfAwait2; // int resultOfAwait2 ... private Task<int> currentTaskToAwait; /// <summary> /// Moves the state machine to its next state. /// </summary> void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { // Orginal code is splitted by "case"s: // case -1: // HelperMethods.Before(); // MethodAsync(Arg0, arg1); // case 0: // int resultOfAwait1 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); // MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); // case 1: // int resultOfAwait2 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); // int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // return resultToReturn; case -1: // -1 is begin. HelperMethods.Before(); // Code before 1st await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1); // 1st task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 0. this.State = 0; IAsyncStateMachine this1 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => this1.MoveNext()); // Callback break; case 0: // Now 1st await is done. this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 1st await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); // Code after 1st await and before 2nd await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3); // 2nd task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 1. this.State = 1; IAsyncStateMachine this2 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => this2.MoveNext()); // Callback break; case 1: // Now 2nd await is done. this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 2nd await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); // Code after 2nd await. int resultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; // Code after 2nd await. // End with resultToReturn. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetResult(resultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { // End with exception. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetException(exception); } } /// <summary> /// Configures the state machine with a heap-allocated replica. /// </summary> /// <param name="stateMachine">The heap-allocated replica.</param> [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { // No core logic. } } Only Task and TaskCompletionSource are involved in this version. And MultiCallMethodAsync() can be simplified to: [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync_(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, ResultToReturn = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(), // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End State = -1 }; (multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine as IAsyncStateMachine).MoveNext(); // Original code are in this method. return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.ResultToReturn.Task; } Now the whole state machine becomes very clear - it is about callback: Original code are split into pieces by “await”s, and each piece is put into each “case” in the state machine. Here the 2 awaits split the code into 3 pieces, so there are 3 “case”s. The “piece”s are chained by callback, that is done by Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(callback), or currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(callback) in the simplified code. A previous “piece” will end with a Task (which is to be awaited), when the task is done, it will callback the next “piece”. The state machine’s state works with the “case”s to ensure the code “piece”s executes one after another. Callback Since it is about callback, the simplification  can go even further – the entire state machine can be completely purged. Now MultiCallMethodAsync() becomes: internal static Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { TaskCompletionSource<int> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(); try { // Oringinal code begins. HelperMethods.Before(); MethodAsync(arg0, arg1).ContinueWith(await1 => { int resultOfAwait1 = await1.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); MethodAsync(arg2, arg3).ContinueWith(await2 => { int resultOfAwait2 = await2.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // Oringinal code ends. taskCompletionSource.SetResult(resultToReturn); }); }); } catch (Exception exception) { taskCompletionSource.SetException(exception); } return taskCompletionSource.Task; } Please compare with the original async / await code: HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; Yeah that is the magic of C# async / await: Await is literally pretending to wait. In a await expression, a Task object will be return immediately so that caller is not blocked. The continuation code is compiled as that Task’s callback code. When that task is done, continuation code will execute. Please notice that many details inside the state machine are omitted for simplicity, like context caring, etc. If you want to have a detailed picture, please do check out the source code of AsyncTaskMethodBuilder and TaskAwaiter.

    Read the article

  • Is computer's DRAM size not as important once we get a Solid State Drive?

    - by Jian Lin
    I am thinking of getting a Dell X11 netbook, and it can go up to 8GB of DRAM, together with a 256GB Solid State Drive. So in that case, it can handle quite a bit of Virtual PC running Linux, and Win XP, etc. But is the 8GB of RAM not so important any more. Won't 2GB or 4GB be quite good if a Solid State Hard drive is used? I think the most worried thing is that the memory is not enough and the less often used data is swapped to the pagefile on hard disk and it will become really slow, but with SDD drive, the problem is a lot less of a concerned? Is there a comparison as to, if DRAM speed is n, then SDD drive speed is how many n and hard disk speed is how many n just as a ball park comparison?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >