i want to use keyPressed function in canvas class. but i do not want immediately call this function.
i try to use wait function but it cause an error ( i think it hasn't any use for this). what should i do?
keyPressed is called by the AMS (Application Management Software) when the user clicks a key. You cannot delay that.
But you can of course call keyPressed yourself as you want. If you want to call keyPressed 10 seconds from now, you should create a Thread with a timer and a loop that asks if 10 seconds has gone by now.
Something like this: (not tested)
class keyPressedAfterSeconds implemments Runnable {
MyCanvasObject myCanvas = null;
int seconds = 10; // Default
long startTime;
public keyPressedAfterSeconds(MyCanvasObject myCanvas, int seconds) {
this.myCanvas = myCanvas;
this.seconds = seconds;
new Thread(this).start();
}
public run() {
startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
while(System.currentTimeMillis()-startTime<seconds*1000) {
try { // Wait 100 ms and ask again
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
myCanvas.keyPressed(someKeycode);
}
}
Related
I'm developing an app for Windows in Visual C++ which would get inputs from a web API. Some of the API calls require me to request response in some specified time delay and during this time I would like to display a spinner.
I'm all good with the displaying spinner, disabling the buttons etc for the time I need to wait before proceeding to the request, but don't know how to pause the process within the app. Obviously, if I use the _sleep function, the app becomes unresposive.
Here's more or less what I need to achieve (pseudo-code)
void doSomething()
{
ui->button1->setEnable(false);
SendAPIReuqest1();
while (APIRequest1_success)
{
requestAPIRequest1_response();
//wait 10s if false and retry, this can take up to 5mins
}
SendAPIRequest2();
//wait 30s - here I know I can start the job on my end exactly after 30s
doSometing2();
ui->button1->setEnable(true);
}
What would be the correct approach to achieve what I need?
You'll most likely just want to poll for a response from the web API, alternatively you can start a secondary thread to check for a response from the web API;
After seeing some minimal code, something similar to this may work.
//takes an initial start time, calculates elapsed time, compares elapsed time to count
bool ready(std::chrono::time_point<std::chrono::system_clock>&start, const double& count) {
auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
std::chrono::duration<double> diff = end-start;
if (diff.count() >= count) {
start = end;
return true;
}
return false;
}
void doSomething()
{
static std::chrono::time_point<std::chrono::system_clock> start;
static int state = 0;
switch(state) {
case (0):
ui->button1->setEnable(false);
SendAPIRequest1();
if (APIRequest1_success) {
start = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
++state;
}
break;
case (1):
if (ready(start, 10.0) && requestAPIRequest1_response()) ++state;
break;
case(2):
SendAPIRequest2();
start = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
++state;
break;
case(3):
if (ready(start, 30.0)) {
doSomething2();
ui->button1->setEnable(true);
state = 0;
}
break;
}
}
This way you can call the function and it will either attempt one of the requests or return to do other tasks.
or with threads it could be as simple as
void worker_func(std::promise<bool>&& result) {
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
SendAPIRequest1();
while (!requestAPIRequest1_response()) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(10s);
}
SendAPIRequest2();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(30s);
doSomething2();
result.set_value(true);
}
void doSomething() {
static std::future<bool> finished;
static bool flag = true;
if (flag) {
std::promise<bool> _finished;
finished = _finished.get_future();
ui.button1.setEnable(false);
std::thread worker(worker_func, std::move(_finished));
flag = false;
} else if (finished.wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(0)) == std::future_status::ready) {
//finished.get();
worker.join();
ui.button1.setEnable(true);
flag = true;
}
}
This way your main thread can keep running the ui, while the worker thread waits for the web API response, as long as your requests aren't handling any QT ui components I believe this should work.
Edit:
Since I have never used QT and it was never mentioned originally that QT was being used the above answers may or may not be usefull, however it looks like QT has some functions to handle things like this. maybe you can just start and stop a Qtimer
QTimer *timer = new QTimer(this);
connect(timer, &QTimer::timeout, this, &foo::update);
timer->start(1000);
would run the function foo::update() every second, the time interval can be changed accordingly. Here is a reference to QTimer and a reference to another class which may be of interest QTimerEvent not to mention, QT has an entire event handling system The Event System
I have a java thread which is running a path-finding algorithm in a constant while loop. Then, every so often I want to retrieve the most updated path from the thread. However, I am unsure how to do this, and think I might be doing it wrong.
My thread consists of the following code:
public class BotThread extends Thread {
Bot bot;
AStar pathFinder;
Player targetPlayer;
public List<boolean[]> plan;
public BotThread(Bot bot) {
this.bot = bot;
this.plan = new ArrayList<>();
pathFinder = new AStar(bot, bot.getLevelHandler());
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
System.out.println("THREAD RUNNING");
targetPlayer = bot.targetPlayer;
plan = pathFinder.optimise(targetPlayer);
}
}
public boolean[] getNextAction() {
return plan.remove(0);
}
}
I then create an object of BotThread, and call start(). Then when I call getNextAction() on the thread, I seem to receive a null pointer. Is this because I am not able to call another method on the thread whilst it is in the main loop? How should I do this properly?
This is because you are not giving enough time to thread to initialise plan Arraylist. You need to add sleeping time to the threads. Something like this while calling BotThread class from main:
int num_threads = 8;
BotThread myt[] = new BotThread[num_threads];
for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) {
myt[i] = new BotThread();
myt[i].start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
myt[i].getNextAction();
}
My somewhat data-intensive wp7 app persists data as follows: I maintain a change journal reflecting all user activity, and every couple of seconds, a thread timer spins up a threadpool thread that flushes the change journal to a database inside a transaction. It looks something like this:
When the user exits, I stop the timer, flush the journal on the UI thread (takes no more than a second or two), and dismount the DB.
However, if the worker thread is active when the user exits, I can't figure out how to react gracefully. The system seems to kill the worker thread, so it never finishes its work and never gives up its lock on the database connection, and the ui thread then attempts to acquire the lock, and is immediately killed by the system. I tried setting a flag on the UI thread requesting the worker to abort, but I think the worker was interrupted before it read the flag. Everything works fine except for this 1 in 100 scenario where some user changes end up not being saved to the db, and I can't seem to get around this.
Very simplified code below:
private Timer _SweepTimer = new Timer(SweepCallback, null, 5000, 5000);
private volatile bool _BailOut = false;
private void SweepCallback(object state) {
lock (db) {
db.startTransaction();
foreach(var entry in changeJournal){
//CRUD entry as appropriate
if(_BailOut){
db.rollbackTransaction();
return;
}
}
db.endTransaction();
changeJournal.Clear();
}
}
private void RespondToSystemExit(){
_BailOut = true; //Set flag for worker to exit
lock(db){ //In theory, should acquire the lock after the bg thread bails out
SweepCallback(null);//Flush to db on the UI thread
db.dismount();//App is now ready to close
}
}
Well, just to close this question, I ended up using a manualresetevent instead of the locking, which is to the best of my understanding a misuse of the manualresetevent, risky and hacky, but its better than nothing.
I still don't know why my original code wasn't working.
EDIT: For posterity, I'm reposting the code to reproduce this from the MS forums:
//This is a functioning console app showing the code working as it should. Press "w" and then "i" to start and then interrupt the worker
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace deadlocktest {
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
var tester = new ThreadTest();
string input = "";
while (!input.Equals("x")) {
input = Console.ReadLine();
switch (input) {
case "w":
tester.StartWorker();
break;
case "i":
tester.Interrupt();
break;
default:
return;
}
}
}
}
class ThreadTest{
private Object lockObj = new Object();
private volatile bool WorkerCancel = false;
public void StartWorker(){
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((obj) => {
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj)) {
try {
Log("Worker acquired the lock");
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++) {
Thread.Sleep(1200);
Log("Worker: tick" + x.ToString());
if (WorkerCancel) {
Log("Worker received exit signal, exiting");
WorkerCancel = false;
break;
}
}
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("Worker released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("Worker failed to acquire lock");
}
});
}
public void Interrupt() {
Log("UI thread - Setting interrupt flag");
WorkerCancel = true;
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj, 5000)) {
try {
Log("UI thread - successfully acquired lock from worker");
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("UI thread - Released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("UI thread - failed to acquire the lock from the worker");
}
}
private void Log(string Data) {
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - {1}", DateTime.Now.ToString("mm:ss:ffff"), Data));
}
}
}
Here is nearly identical code that fails for WP7, just make a page with two buttons and hook them
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
using System.Windows;
using Microsoft.Phone.Controls;
namespace WorkerThreadDemo {
public partial class MainPage : PhoneApplicationPage {
public MainPage() {
InitializeComponent();
}
private Object lockObj = new Object();
private volatile bool WorkerCancel = false;
private void buttonStartWorker_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) {
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((obj) => {
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj)) {
try {
Log("Worker acquired the lock");
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++) {
Thread.Sleep(1200);
Log("Worker: tick" + x.ToString());
if (WorkerCancel) {
Log("Worker received exit signal, exiting");
WorkerCancel = false;
break;
}
}
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("Worker released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("Worker failed to acquire lock");
}
});
}
private void Log(string Data) {
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - {1}", DateTime.Now.ToString("mm:ss:ffff"), Data));
}
private void buttonInterrupt_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) {
Log("UI thread - Setting interrupt flag");
WorkerCancel = true;
//Thread.Sleep(3000); UNCOMMENT ME AND THIS WILL START TO WORK!
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj, 5000)) {
try {
Log("UI thread - successfully acquired lock from worker");
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("UI thread - Released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("UI thread - failed to acquire the lock from the worker");
}
}
}
}
Your approach should work when you operate from the Application_Deactivated or Application_Closing event. MSDN says:
There is a time limit for the Deactivated event to complete. The
device may terminate the application if it takes longer than 10
seconds to save the transient state.
So if you say it just takes just a few seconds this should be fine. Unless the docs don't tell the whole story. Or your worker thread takes longer to exit than you think.
As Heinrich Ulbricht already said you have <=10 sec to finish your stuff, but you should block MainThread to get them.
It means that even if you have BG thread with much work to do, but your UI thread just does nothing in OnClosingEvent/OnDeactivatingEvent - you will not get your 10 seconds.
Our application actually does eternal wait on UI thread in closing event to allow BG thread send some data thru sockets.
Hi i am trying to grab a value from my threading but it seem work not so find to me course i found that my code structure are unstable enough..here is my code i name my thread class as "clsThreadCount" and below is my implementation
public volatile bool Grab = false;
public volatile int count = 0;
public void Initialization(int i)
{
count = i;
}
public void Play()
{
Grab = false;
_shouldStop = false;
ThreadTest();
}
public void Stop()
{
_shouldStop = true;
workerThread.Join(1);
workerThread.Abort();
}
private void ThreadTest()
{
workerThread = new Thread(DoWork);
workerThread.Start();
while (!workerThread.IsAlive) ;
}
private void DoWork()
{
try
{
while (!_shouldStop)
{
if (Grab)
{
count++;
Grab = false;
}
}
}
catch (Exception)
{
Play();
}
finally
{
}
}
when my program(main menu) are starting to run i will trigger the initialize function at pass the parameter as 7
ObjThreadCount.Initialization(7); // count = 7
ObjThreadCount.Play(); // the thread are running
ObjThreadCount.Grab = true; // the grab equal to true, count++ are trigger
Thread.Sleep(100); // wait awhile
lblResult.Text = ObjThreadCount.count.ToString(); // sometime i can get count++ result (e.g. 8)
ObjThreadCount.Stop(); // thread stop
sometime my program can able to get a right counting from the thread but sometime are not.
i realize at my while loop implementation there are something are missing..
something like waitone or waitautoevent..can i ignore Thread.Sleep(100) ?? what are the suitable code should i add in the while loop ?
Please help me~ :S
** sorry in the first upload i forgot to write down "volatile" into the variable
thank you..
If C# (and C and java, and probably C++), you need to declare _shouldStop and Grab as volatile.
As every Haxe developer knows, you could use haxe.Timer.delayed() to delay function call for some time. But this function doesn't exist for Neko at all. Is there a way to achieve the same results?
Have to check it first but
function delayed(f, time) {
neko.vm.Thread.create(function() {
neko.Sys.sleep(time);
f();
});
}
might be the closest thing possible. The only cons is that application becomes multi threaded which could lead to serious problems.
I thought about your issue and I think the best way is to create your own Timer class for Neko. I made a Timer class for you:
NekoTimer.hx
package;
import neko.Sys;
class NekoTimer
{
private static var threadActive:Bool = false;
private static var timersList:Array<TimerInfo> = new Array<TimerInfo>();
private static var timerInterval:Float = 0.1;
public static function addTimer(interval:Int, callMethod:Void->Void):Int
{
//setup timer thread if not yet active
if (!threadActive) setupTimerThread();
//add the given timer
return timersList.push(new TimerInfo(interval, callMethod, Sys.time() * 1000)) - 1;
}
public static function delTimer(id:Int):Void
{
timersList.splice(id, 1);
}
private static function setupTimerThread():Void
{
threadActive = true;
neko.vm.Thread.create(function() {
while (true) {
Sys.sleep(timerInterval);
for (timer in timersList) {
if (Sys.time() * 1000 - timer.lastCallTimestamp >= timer.interval) {
timer.callMethod();
timer.lastCallTimestamp = Sys.time() * 1000;
}
}
}
});
}
}
private class TimerInfo
{
public var interval:Int;
public var callMethod:Void->Void;
public var lastCallTimestamp:Float;
public function new(interval:Int, callMethod:Void->Void, lastCallTimestamp:Float) {
this.interval = interval;
this.callMethod = callMethod;
this.lastCallTimestamp = lastCallTimestamp;
}
}
Call it like this:
package ;
import neko.Lib;
class Main
{
private var timerId:Int;
public function new()
{
trace("setting up timer...");
timerId = NekoTimer.addTimer(5000, timerCallback);
trace(timerId);
//idle main app
while (true) { }
}
private function timerCallback():Void
{
trace("it's now 5 seconds later");
NekoTimer.delTimer(timerId);
trace("removed timer");
}
//neko constructor
static function main()
{
new Main();
}
}
Hope that helps.
Note: this one has an accuracy of 100ms. You can increase this by decreasing the timerInterval setting.
I used the class as well, and I found one issue. Because is not completely realtime, it sleeps the interval, calls the function, and sleeps the interval again. So, depending on how long the function you are running takes, it ticks slower or faster.
I've solved it by replacing line 39 like so:
//timer.lastCallTimestamp = Sys.time() * 1000;
timer.lastCallTimestamp = timer.lastCallTimestamp + timer.interval;
Yes I don't know anything except for what you mention in your first answer. On Linux you can use SIGALARM - but this doesn't look trivial, 100% pure C code, and needs to be handled with great care to avoid crashing the VM.