I need to process AJAX in my crawler and would prefer using system browser albeit I may have to change my mind. My crawler program may generally be working in background while the user can work on other stuff in other applications.
Anyhow - since WebControl leaks memory if processing JS libs that leak memory - this can cause a crawler to quickly run out of memory. (Many SO posts about this.)
So I have created a solution that uses a separate "dummy" small executable with the webcontrol that takes input/output. This is launched as a separate process by the crawler. This part seems to work great. This child process is created/destroyed as many times as needed.
However, this called process with the embedded-IE grabs focus on every page load (a least if e.g. JS code calls focus) which means if the user is doing work in e.g. Word or whatever - keyboard focus is lost.
I have already moved the embedded IE window off-screen, but I can not make it invisible in the traditional sense since then the embedded IE stops working.
I have tried to disable all parent controls before calling navigate - but it does not work for me.
Any ideas I have not tried? Maybe somehow catch a windows message that focuses webcontrol and ignore it? OR something so I can immediately refocus the earlier control that had focus?
I currently use Delphi - but this question is applicable to VB, C# .Net etc. from my earlier investigations on this matter. I will take a solution and ideas in any language.
I'm writing a command line tool for installing Windows services using Node JS. After running a bunch of async operations, my tool should print a success message then quit. Sometimes however, it prints its success message and doesn't quit.
Is there a way to view what is queued on Node's internal event loop, so I can see what is preventing my tool from quitting?
The most typical culprit for me in CLI apps is event listeners that are keeping the process alive. I obviously can't say if that's relevant to you without seeing your code, though.
To answer your more general question, I don't believe there are any direct ways to view all outstanding tasks in the event loop (at least not from JS-land). You can, however, get pretty close with process._getActiveHandles() and process._getActiveRequests().
I really recommend you look up the documentation for them, though. Because you won't find any. They're undocumented. And they start with underscores. Use at your own peril. :)
try to use some tools to clarify the workflow - for example, the https://github.com/caolan/async#waterfall or https://github.com/caolan/async#eachseriesarr-iterator-callback
so, you don't lose the callback called and can catch any erros thrown while executing commands.
I think you also need to provide some code samples that leads to this errors.
I have always read and worked off a single UI thread since having more than one will screw up message pumping etc etc.
I am answering my own question here but want to validate my understanding on Chrome browser which is known to have multiple processes ( one per tab ) - does it also accelerate some bit on the rendering part by employing multiple UI threads ?
My guess is it does NOT , but if it does It would be very interesting to know or look at some sample c# code to demo the same ( does not have to be web browser demo).
Any pointers in the multiple UI thread direction would help! thanks.
I cant state definitively how Chrome handles the rendering threads - but I would assume that each tab has its own rendering thread. I wouldnt see the point of going through all the effort of process isolating the tabs, only to tie them all together on a common rendering thread. They would all have the opportunity to interfere with each other.
I implemented a 'chrome-style' browser using WPF - the application shell was a single process, then each 'tab' was a MAF AddIn running in a separate process. The rendering was all in child processes - there was nothing shared. Each AddIn returned an INativeHandleContract (a WPF control) which was passed across the process boundary.
The upshot of this, was that an exception ANYWHERE in a child tab, would only take down the tab, and could be detected by the parent process, giving it a chance to provide some feedback/reload the tab etc.
This document wasnt around when I achieved it, but after a quick browse I think it has some pointers:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb909794.aspx
Kent Boogaart also lent a helpful hand
http://kentb.blogspot.com/2008/06/maf-gymnastics-service-provider.html
You may also need this QFE from Microsoft to fix a bug in serialization you may experience when passing a WPF control across a process boundary:
http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/KB982638
In regards to MS Connect bug: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/467381/wpf-controls-cannot-be-passed-across-process-boundaries
Don't confuse threads and processes. Each process will have it's own ui thread, but likely also it's own message pump.
Can someone recommend a straight forward way of adding some type of graphical notification (status bar, spinning clocks, etc...) to my wx.Python gui application? Currently, it searches logs on a server for unique strings, and often times takes upwards to 3-4 minutes to complete. However, it would be convenient to have some type of display letting a user know that the status of the job towards finishing/completion. If I added a feature like this, I'm not sure, but I'm afraid I may have to look at using threads ... and I'm a complete newbie to Python? Any help and direction will be appreciated.
Yes, you'd need to use threads or queues or something similar. Fortunately, there are some excellent examples here: http://wiki.wxpython.org/LongRunningTasks and this tutorial I wrote is pretty straight-forward too: http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2010/05/22/wxpython-and-threads/
Using threads isn't that hard. Basically you put the long running part in the thread and every so often, you send a status update to your GUI using a thread-safe method, like wx.PostEvent or wx.CallAfter. Then you can update your statusbar or a progress bar or whatever you're using.
Can anyone give me a scenario where they think busy cursors are justified? I feel like they're always a bad idea from a user's perspective. Clarification: by busy cursors, I mean when the user can no longer interact with the application, they can only move their hourglass mouse pointer around and whistle a tune.
In summary, I think that the user should be blocked from doing stuff in your app only when the wait interval is very short (2 seconds or less) and the cognitive overhead of doing multi-threading is likely to result in a less stable app. For more detail, see below.
For an operation lasting less than 0.1 second, you don't usually need to go asynchronous or even show an hourglass.
For an operation lasting between 0.1 and 2 seconds, you usually don't need to go asynchronous. Just switch the cursor to the hourglass, then do the work inline. The visual cue is enough to keep the end-user happy.
If the end-user initiates an operation that is going to take just a couple of seconds, he's in a "focused" mode of thinking in which he's subconsciously waiting for the results of his action, and he hasn’t switched his conscious brain out of that particular focus. So blocking the UI - with a visual indicator that this has happened - is perfectly acceptable for such a short period of time.
For an operation lasting more than 2 seconds, you should usually go asynchronous. But even then, you should provide some sort of progress indicator. People find it difficult to concentrate in the absence of stimulation, and 2 seconds is long enough that the end-user is naturally going to move from conscious ‘focused’ activity to conscious ‘waiting’ activity.
The progress indicator gives them something to occupy them while they are in that waiting mode, and also gives the means of determining when they are going to switch back into their ‘focused’ context. The visual cues give the brain something around which to structure those context switches, without demanding too much conscious thought.
Where it gets messy is where you have an operation that usually completes in X time, but occasionally takes Y, where Y is much greater than X. This can happen for remote actions such as reaching across a network. That's when you might need a combination of the above actions. For example, consider displaying an egg-timer for the first 2 seconds and only then bringing in your progress indicator. This avoids wrenching the end-user from the 'focused' context directly to the 'waiting' context without an intermediate step.
It's not specifically the busy cursor that is important, but it IS important, absolutely, always to give feedback to the user that something is happening in response to their input. It is important to realize that without a busy cursor, progress bar, throbber, flashing button, swirling baton, dancing clown.. it doesn't matter ANYTHING- if you don't have it, and the computer just sits there doing nothing, the computer looks broken to the user.
immediate feedback for every user action is incredibly important.
I think you may well be right: in a decent asynchronous app, you never need to show a busy cursor. The user can always do something even if the big last operation is completing.
That said, sometimes Java apps like Netbeans or Eclipse, or even Visual Studio, hang with no busy cursor and no hope. But in that case, a busy cursor probably wouldn't help much either...but I think you're right: busy cursors are from a non-multithreading era for apps. In Flex apps, for instance, EVERYTHING is automatically event-driven callbacks, so setting a busy cursor would just be meaningless (though possible, of course).
You show a busy cursor when the user can not do anything until the operation is completed - including exiting the application.
I find it interesting that you don't see busy cursors in Web Browsers - perhaps that why people like them so much.
No, wait, I have a better answer. You show a busy cursor when the computer is thinking.
When one hits the Refresh button on a web browser, busy cursor must appear immediately to tell the user to let them know that a page is being loaded.
I think it was Don't Make Me Think that said that the tolerable loading time for human is zero second.
Google says:
Responsive
It's possible to write code that wins
every performance test in the world,
but that still sends users in a fiery
rage when they try to use it. These
are the applications that aren't
responsive enough — the ones that feel
sluggish, hang or freeze for
significant periods, or take too long
to process input.
There are two purposes for it:
Indicate for the user that something is happening.
Indicate for the user that nothing can't be done right now.
Busy cursor is better signal about the operation than nothing. For longer lasting operations something better should be used. For example browsers is still operational when a page is being retrieved and there is even a button to stop the operation. As the user interface is fully functional, there is no need to use busy cursor. However busy cursor can be used even in this kind of situations in the transition phases like when starting the operation or when stopping it.
I try to use them on any action that may take from 0.5 to 3 seconds, for longer actions I think progress indicators with enough information should be used.
I noticed with Fedora 8 at least that when an app sets the "busy" cursor, the "busy interactive" one is actually displayed. I guess this is because the system is still responsive to mouse input (like dragging the window etc.). As an aside, selecting the "busy interactive" cursor explicitly on linux is tricky:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/x_cursors/
The only thing I believe the busy cursor does is it informs the user that ...
I'm not outright ignoring you, I'm just doing something else that may take awhile
While it is absolutely necessary to alert the user that your application is doing something, a busy cursor is only useful for the first few seconds of processing. For a delay of more than about 15-20 seconds, something else must be presented such as a progress bar, status message, message box, whatever. People assume your software has locked up after a minute or so and will try to terminate it. Sometimes, overall visual cues are just as important as a busy cursor.
For example, applications with tabs that do not respond with appropriate highlighting until the operation in the tab completes can be fixed up by updating the tab temporarily until all operations are complete. Sometimes, just a little optimization or refactoring will clean up horrible user interface responsiveness such as this.
I would use them only for quick completing things, like say under half a second. If anything takes longer than that then a progress dialog should popup, or a progress bar should appear in the status bar or somewhere else in the interface.
The user should always be able to cancel the action if it is taking too long to complete.
In response to the comment, the busy cursor would only be visible for the half second or so, as once the progress dialog is up it should change to being one of those "half busy" cursors, or just the normal arrow cursor.
You should avoid having a busy cursor up except in extreme circumstances, and if you think you need one, then think again and redesign.
For example, to indicate that you've clicked on a button, even though it's not done processing the event. If there were not some indication, the user might try to click the button again, causing all manner of badness.