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.
Related
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.
Hi I’m currently working on a project for a videocoacher program for recording and replaying video, as well as showing delayed real-time video, and tracking placement via color.
The software is running on linux , on a 4 core odroid, and initially I started to make it multi threaded with threads implemented as a part of each new class. Each of these threads taking care of their own gui elements.
I’ve later found out that I need to show all gui elements/video in the main/gui thread. Earlier I’ve used opencv and boost. But it seems like using the Qt might be a better idea since some of the code already depends on the QT library. I am currently a novice at programming, and not very familiar with either opencv, qt, or threading.
My question is:
Is this relatively sound as a structure for the program, or is there something inherently wrong with how I am planning to do it now?
Main/GUI Thread
will show all visual & video content
will start a thread for ButtonControl object
ButtonControl
will handle all button input, controlling what happens in the program
depending on what buttons are pressed will start and end threads
like:
StoreToFile object ( starts storing video to a file, while sending a
video stream to GUI thread to show what it is storing in real-time)
ReadFromFile object ( reads the file currently stored and sends data
to display it in GUI thread
DelayedVideoStream object (stores video to buffer, and shows a
continuous delayed view of what happened 5seconds in the past)
ColorTracking object (tracks where a color placement is in the image
)
Kind regards, and thank you for taking the time to look at my question.
TLDR - is a structure where threads are implemented as classes and the image data is sent back to the gui/main thread a decent way to do a multithreaded program ?
Performance-wise, the best approach is not to deal with threads directly at all, but use QtConcurrent::run. It is safe to paint QImages that are simply passed via signals to a GUI object to display. I wrote a complete example demonstrating that approach. It leads to some very concise and easy-to-understand code thanks to related code being adjacent.
If you do want to use explicit threads, it will be much easier not to derive from QThread, but to simply move various worker objects into their threads, and have them communicate via signals and slots. I have a complete example for that approach as well.
I am implementing a synchronization method inside my application. The main steps it will perform are:
Get XML content from a remote site
Parse this XML using IXMLDomDocument2
Update a Firebird database
The logic is quite complex, but it is working fine per se.
The problem is when I try to run it inside a separate thread. It is clear to me that I am not getting thread safety properly in my logic.
So let´s slice it
I - Get content using TidHTTP
Didn´t have any problems with it, should I have any concerns here?
II - For IXMLDomDocument2 I am calling
CoInitializeEx(nil, 0);
which according to the documentation should be enough to use IXMLDomDocument2 safely. And it seems to be ok, after adding it I did not get any error when trying to use it. Any extra concern here?
III - To use Firebird safely
My problems are here. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don´t (which I guess is the main symptom of badly designed thread logic). Most of the time I get a EInterbaseError with the message "Error reading data from the connection". Other times it simply locks.
Should I have a separate connection with the database?
Warren nailed the main problem with sharing the connection between the background and foreground thread... you have another issue and that is every call to CoInitialize needs to be paired with CoUninitialize
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms688715(v=vs.85).aspx
In WinForms, pretty much all your UI is thread-specific. You have to use [STAThread] so that the common dialogs will work, and you can't (safely) access a UI element from any thread other than the one that created it. From what I've heard, that's because that's just how Windows works -- window handles are thread-specific.
In WPF, these same restrictions were kept, because ultimately it's still building on top of the same Windows API, still window handles (though mostly just for top-level windows), etc. In fact, WPF even made things more restrictive, because you can't even access things like bitmaps across threads.
Now along comes WinRT, a whole new way of accessing Windows -- a fresh, clean slate. Are we still stuck with the same old threading restrictions (specifically: only being able to manipulate a UI control from the thread that created it), or have they opened this up?
I would expect it to be the same model - but much easier to use, at least from C# and VB, with the new async handling which lets you write a synchronous-looking method which just uses "await" when it needs to wait for a long-running task to complete before proceeding.
Given the emphasis on making asynchronous code easier to write, it would be surprising for MS to forsake the efficiency of requiring single-threaded access to the UI at the same time.
The threading model is identical. There is still a notion of single threaded and multi-threaded apartments (STA/MTA), it must be initialized by a call to RoInitialize. Which behaves very much like CoInitialize in name, argument and error returns. The user interface thread is single threaded, confirmed at 36:00 in this video.
The HTML/CSS UI model is inherently single threaded (until the advent of web workers recently, JS didn't support threads). Xaml is also single threaded (because it's really hard for developers to write code to a multithreaded GUI).
The underlying threading model does have some key differences. When your application starts, an ASTA (Application STA) is created to run your UI code as I showed in the talk. This ASTA does not allow reentrancy - you will not receive unrelated calls while making an outgoing call. This is a significant difference from STAs.
You are allowed to create async workitems - see the Windows.System.Threadpool namespace. These workitem threads are automatically initialized to MTA. As Larry mentioned, webworkers are the JS equivalent concept.
Your UI components are thread affined. See the Windows.UI.Core.CoreDispatcher class for information on how to execute code on the UI thread. You can check out the threading sample for some example code to update the UI from an async operation.
Things are different in pretty important ways.
While it's true the underlying threading model is the same, your question is generally related to how logical concurrency works with UI, and with respect to this what developers see in Windows 8 will be new.
As you mention most dialogs previously blocked. For Metro apps many UI components do not block all. Remember the talk of WinRT being asynchronous? It applies to UI components also.
For example this .NET 4 code will not necessarily kill your harddrive because the UI call blocks on Show (C# example):
bool formatHardDrive = true;
if (MessageBox.Show("Format your harddrive?") == NO)
formatHardDrive = false;
if (formatHardDrive == true)
Format();
With Windows 8 Metro many UI components like Windows.UI.Popups.MessageDialog, are by default Asynchronous so the Show call would immediately (logically) fall through to the next line of code before the user input is retrieved.
Of course there is an elegant solution to this based on the await/promise design patterns (Javascript example):
var md = Windows.UI.Popups.MessageDialog("Hello World!");
md.showAsync().then(function (command) {
console.log("pressed: " + command.label); });
The point is that while the threading model doesn't change, when most people mention UI and threading they are thinking about logical concurrency and how it affects the programming model.
Overall I think the asynchronous paradigm shift is a positive thing. It requires a bit of a shift in perspective, but it's consistent with the way other platforms are evolving on both the client and server sides.
my question is : how can I use SendMessage() to implement thread communication between two threads, one with a window (GUI) and the other with no window?
The problem is that SendMessage() needs a handle (HWND)?
Another detail about my project : Two threads, one running managed code (the one with the user interface), and the other running native code (the one without window)
Thank you very much!
I would suggest creating a hidden window. When using postthreadmessage, there is a chance that your message could get lost (ie: if a messagebox is running the message loop).
More info about that at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/04/26/412116.aspx
Perhaps you should try to use PostMessage or PostThreadMessage
If the thread has no window, no message queue, and no message dispatcher, then it's going to be hard to a message to it. It is common for threads to create hidden windows just for communication purposes (take a look with Windows Spy and you'll see plenty of examples).
One alternative is to use shared memory and a synchronization primitive such an event or semaphore. Another alternative is to use pipes.
what #jdigital said. Note that if you create a hidden window, and your thread does not already implement a message loop (either in regular win32-speak, or one in the context of a COM STA -- and if you have no idea what I'm talking about then one probably does not exist in your thread), you'll also want to create a message loop as well. ATL makes it fairly easy with _AtlModule.RunMessageLoop(); Unfortunately this also means the thread in question is probably going to need to be event-driven while it is in the message loop. You can do tricky things like MsgWaitForMultipleObjects, but it gets hairy.
Here's an example of hidden windows if you're familiar with ATL/COM. I went through this pain a while back and thought there was a useful discussion on microsoft.public.vc.atl, but the best I can find now is this post. which goes into some detail about variants of message loops (what to do differently if you have keystroke accelerators or modeless windows, sounds like you don't in your application).