Search Results

Search found 9705 results on 389 pages for 'boost thread'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 81/389 | < Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >

  • What is used instead of SendMessage and PostMessage in Java to handle inter-thread communications?

    - by Kieveli
    I'm from a WinAPI / C++ background, and I'm curious as to what the Java world uses in place of a threaded message loop in a worker thread to handle communications and interactions between threads. The idea is to use a message pump in both the worker thread, and the main thread, and have them posting messages back and forth. This solution is very WinAPI / C++ centric, and probably not the preferred method of achieving this goal in Java. What is the 'Java' way to do something like this?

    Read the article

  • C++ auto function return type implementation

    - by aaa
    hello. Is there macro, something like BOOST_AUTO, which would allow to emulate automatic return type deduction of function in C++? I mean something like trailing-return-type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x#Alternative_function_syntax thank you

    Read the article

  • How to properly handle signals when using the worker thread pattern?

    - by ipartola
    I have a simple server that looks something like this: void *run_thread(void *arg) { // Communicate via a blocking socket } int main() { // Initialization happens here... // Main event loop while (1) { new_client = accept(socket, ...); pthread_create(&thread, NULL, &run_thread, *thread_data*); pthread_detach(thread); } // Do cleanup stuff: close(socket); // Wait for existing threads to finish exit(0); ) Thus when a SIGINT or SIGTERM is received I need to break out of the main event loop to get to the clean up code. Moreover most likely the master thread is waiting on the accept() call so it's not able to check some other variable to see if it should break;. Most of the advice I found was along the lines of this: http://devcry.blogspot.com/2009/05/pthreads-and-unix-signals.html (creating a special signal handling thread to catch all the signals and do processing on those). However, it's the processing portion that I can't really wrap my head around: how can I possibly tell the main thread to return from the accept() call and check on an external variable to see if it should break;?

    Read the article

  • `enable_shared_from_this` has a non-virtual destructor

    - by Shtééf
    I have a pet project with which I experiment with new features of the upcoming C++0x standard. While I have experience with C, I'm fairly new to C++. To train myself into best practices, (besides reading a lot), I have enabled some strict compiler parameters (using GCC 4.4.1): -std=c++0x -Werror -Wall -Winline -Weffc++ -pedantic-errors This has worked fine for me. Until now, I have been able to resolve all obstacles. However, I have a need for enable_shared_from_this, and this is causing me problems. I get the following warning (error, in my case) when compiling my code (probably triggered by -Weffc++): base class ‘class std::enable_shared_from_this<Package>’ has a non-virtual destructor So basically, I'm a bit bugged by this implementation of enable_shared_from_this, because: A destructor of a class that is intended for subclassing should always be virtual, IMHO. The destructor is empty, why have it at all? I can't imagine anyone would want to delete their instance by reference to enable_shared_from_this. But I'm looking for ways to deal with this, so my question is really, is there a proper way to deal with this? And: am I correct in thinking that this destructor is bogus, or is there a real purpose to it?

    Read the article

  • C++: Binding to a base class

    - by Helltone
    The following code works, but I'm not sure it is correct/portable. #include <iostream> #include <tr1/functional> class base { public: base(int v) : x(v) {} protected: int x; }; class derived : public base { public: bool test() { return (x == 42); } }; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { base b(42); if(std::tr1::bind((bool (base::*)()) &derived::test, b)()) { std::cout << "ok\n"; } return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Do I need a semaphore for my thread in Android/Java?

    - by Henrik
    Hello all, When running a thread in Android/Java: public void run() { while (running) { if (moreTasksToExec()) { task = getNextTask() task.exec(); } } } Is it OK to let it run and not using a semaphore to block while no work needs to be executed? I am only using one thread, so I need no inter-thread synchronization.

    Read the article

  • Change Target of Edge in BGL

    - by Sunny
    If my BGL graph contain edge from node x to node y, and I want to change the target of this edge, so that now it's pointing from x to z, how it can be done? Are there any functions in BGL for that?

    Read the article

  • mysql database design: thread and reply of a reply?

    - by ajsie
    in my forum i have threads and replies. one thread has multiple replies. but then, a reply can be a reply of an reply (like google wave). because of that a reply has to have a column "reply_id" so it can point to the parent reply. but then, the "top-level" replies (the replies directly under the thread) will have no parent reply. so how can i fix this? how should the columns be in the reply table (and thread table). at the moment it looks like this: threads: id title body replies: id thread_id (all replies will belong to a thread) reply_id (here lies the problem. the top-level replies wont have a parent reply) body what could a smart design look like to enable reply a reply?

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr as class member

    - by idimba
    It's common to declared contained objects as a pointers to that class, while "forward declarating" them in header file. This in order to reduce physical dependencies in code. For example class B; // forward declaration class A { private: B* pB; }; Would it be good idea to declare such a member as shared_ptr, instead of naked pointer? I would prefer scoped_ptr, but AFAIKit it won't be in standard.

    Read the article

  • Modifying bundled properties from visitor

    - by ravenspoint
    How should I modify the bundled properties of a vertex from inside a visitor? I would like to use the simple method of sub-scripting the graph, but the graph parameter passed into the visitor is const, so compiler disallows changes. I can store a reference to the graph in the visitor, but this seems weird. /** A visitor which identifies vertices as leafs or trees */ class bfs_vis_leaf_finder:public default_bfs_visitor { public: /** Constructor @param[in] total reference to int variable to store total number of leaves @param[in] g reference to graph ( used to modify bundled properties ) */ bfs_vis_leaf_finder( int& total, graph_t& g ) : myTotal( total ), myGraph( g ) { myTotal = 0; } /** Called when the search finds a new vertex If the vertex has no children, it is a leaf and the total leaf count is incremented */ template <typename Vertex, typename Graph> void discover_vertex( Vertex u, Graph& g) { if( out_edges( u, g ).first == out_edges( u, g ).second ) { myTotal++; //g[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::leaf; myGraph[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::leaf; } else { //g[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::tree; myGraph[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::tree; } } int& myTotal; graph_t& myGraph; };

    Read the article

  • Saving core data in a thread, how to ensure its done writing before quitting?

    - by Shizam
    So I'm saving small images to core data which take a really short amount of time to save, like .2 seconds but I'm doing it while the user is flipping through a scroll view so in order to improve responsiveness I'm moving the saving to a thread. This works great, everything gets saved and the app is responsive. However, there is one thing in the core-data + multithreading doco that worries me: "In Cocoa, only the main thread is not-detached. If you need to save on other threads, you must write additional code such that the main thread prevents the application from quitting until all the save operation is complete." Ok, how do you do that? It only needs to last ~ .2 seconds and its rarely going to happen since the chance of the app quitting as something is saving is very low. How do I run something on the main thread that'll prevent the app from quitting AND not block the gui? Thanks

    Read the article

  • C++ associative array with arbitrary types for values

    - by Gerald Kaszuba
    What is the best way to have an associative array with arbitrary value types for each key in C++? Currently my plan is to create a "value" class with member variables of the types I will be expecting. For example: class Value { int iValue; Value(int v) { iValue = v; } std::string sValue; Value(std::string v) { sValue = v; } SomeClass *cValue; Value(SomeClass *v) { cValue = c; } }; std::map<std::string, Value> table; A downside with this is you have to know the type when accessing the "Value". i.e.: table["something"] = Value(5); SomeClass *s = table["something"].cValue; // broken pointer Also the more types that are put in Value, the more bloated the array will be. Any better suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why timed lock doesnt throws a timeout exception in C++0x?

    - by Vicente Botet Escriba
    C++0x allows to lock on a mutex until a given time is reached, and return a boolean stating if the mutex has been locked or not. template <class Clock, class Duration> bool try_lock_until(const chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration>& abs_time); In some contexts, I consider an exceptional situation that the locking fails because of timeout. In this case an exception should be more appropriated. To make the difference a function lock_until could be used to get a timeout exception when the time is reached before locking. template <class Clock, class Duration> void lock_until(const chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration>& abs_time); Do you think that lock_until should be more adequate in some contexts? if yes, on which ones? If no, why try_lock_until will always be a better choice?

    Read the article

  • How to terminate a managed thread blocked in unmanaged code?

    - by James Curran
    I have a managed thread which is waiting, blocked, in an unmanaged code (specifically, it on a call to NamedPipeServerStream.WaitForConnection() which ultimitely calls into unmanaged code, and does not offer a timeout). I want to shut the thread down neatly. Thread.Abort() has no effect until the code returns to the managed realm, which it won't do until a client makes a connection, which we can't wait for). I need a way "shock" it out of the unmanaged code; or a way to just kill the thread even while it's in unmanaged land.

    Read the article

  • What the best multi-thread application debugger for C++ apps.

    - by Coredumped
    I'm looking for a good multi-thread-aware debugger, capable of showing performance charts of application threads on Linux, don't know if such a thing exists, perhaps as a Eclipse plugin. The idea would be to track per thread memory allocation a CPU usage as well as being able to interrupt a thread and examine its stack trace, local vars, etc. It does not have to be an eclipse plugin or a free tool, do any of you have heard of something similar?

    Read the article

  • does anyone see any issues with this thread pattern?

    - by prmatta
    Here is a simple thread pattern that I use when writing a class that needs just one thread, and needs to a specific task. The usual requirements for such a class are that it should be startable, stopable and restartable. Does anyone see any issues with this pattern that I use? public class MyThread implements Runnable { private boolean _exit = false; private Thread _thread = null; public void start () { if (_thread == null) { _thread = new Thread(this, "MyThread"); _thread.start(); } } public void run () { while (_exit) { //do something } } public void stop () { _exit = true; if (_thread != null) { _thread.interrupt(); _thread = null; } } } I am looking for comments around if I am missing something, or if there is a better way to write this.

    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

  • Disallow taking pointer/reference to const to a temporary object in C++ (no C++0X)

    - by KRao
    Hi, I am faced with the following issue. Consider the following class: //Will be similar to bost::reference_wrapper template<class T> class Ref { public: explicit Ref(T& t) : m_ptr(&t) {} private: T* m_ptr; }; and this function returning a double double fun() {return 1.0;} If we now have double x = 1.0; const double xc = 1.0; Ref<double> ref1(x); //OK Ref<const double> refc1(cx); //OK good so far, however: //Ref<double> ref2( fun() ); //Fails as I want it to Ref<const double> refc2( fun() ); //Works but I would like it not to Is there a way to modify Ref (the way you prefer) but not the function fun, so that the last line returns a compile-time error? Please notice you can modify the constructor signature (as long as I am able to initialise the Ref as intended). Thank you in advance for your help!

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >