I'm currently working on a solution that has two projects, a console and a form application. The console application is the main entry point to my application, and from the console the user would run the form application.
The problem is, when the user boots the form application the rest of the business logic (from the console app) won't run until the form is closed. My first thought was to use a background worker for the form, but the business logic in the form project already uses a background worker (and I only have two CPUs...). Perhaps this could be my ignorance for multithreading, but is there a way to do this?
Any thoughts are much appreciated!
Cheers
Well, this is pretty unusual. In general, it doesn't make a lot of sense to provide the user with a nice GUI and still leave a console window up and interactive.
But yes, calling Application.Run() or Form.ShowDialog() is going to block the thread. It has to, the message loop needs to be running to keep the GUI alive. If you do this, be sure to put the [STAThread] attribute on the Main() method.
The only other decent alternative is to start a thread. This isn't a problem, a UI thread doesn't burn any CPU cycles. Code only ever runs when the user does something, it's otherwise idle 99% of the time. Be sure to call the thread's SetApartmentState() method before you start it, STA is required.
Related
Maybe it's a simple question, but I don't get it. When should I use concureency in my javafx project? Is it right that I should use for every task, which do some action in the background, the Concurrency API? So every action in my controller class, which has nothing to do with the UI should be executed in a single task?
I really don't get it how to use this right....
Whenever you have a task that may take sometime to get executed or there is a possibility of delayed response, you do not want your JavaFX Application thread to wait for it, because, as long as the JavaFX Application thread waits for the response, the UI becomes unresponsive.
A few examples where you may want to use a background thread is :
An I/O operation
A web service call
From the JavaFX documentation :
Implementing long-running tasks on the JavaFX Application thread inevitably makes an application UI unresponsive.
On the other hand, if you have minor calculations or some task which can be completed in a jiffy (I am not sure if this is the correct word, but I hope you can relate to what I want to say) and will not put the JavaFX Application thread on wait, you can execute them on the same thread.
I'm in the process of designing an application that will run on a headless Windows CE 6.0 device. The idea is to make an application that will be started at startup and run until powered off. (Basically it will look like a service, but an application is easier to debug without the complete hassle to stop/deploy/start/attach to process procedure)
My concern is what will happen during development. If I debug/deploy the application I see no way of closing it in a friendly and easy way. (Feel free to suggest if this can be done in a better/user friendly way) I will just stop the debugger and the result will be WSACleanup is not called.
Now, the question. What is the consequence of not calling WSACleanup? Will I be able to start and run the winsock application again using the debugger? Or will there be a resource leak preventing me to do so?
Thanks in advance,
Jef
I think that Harry Johnston comment is correct.
Even if your application has no UI you can find a way to close it gracefully. I suppose that you have one or more threads in loops, you can add a named manual reset event that is checked (or can be used for waits instead of Sleep()) inside the loop condition and build a small application that opens the event using the same name, sets it and quits. This would force also your service app to close.
It may not be needed for debugging, but it may be useful also if you'll need to update your software and this requires that your main service is not running.
HI
I have a control that accesses a database using proprietary datasets. The database is an old ISAM bases database.
The control uses a background thread to query the database using the proprietary datasets.
A form will have several of these controls on it, each using their own thread to access the data as they all need to load simultaneously.
The proprietary datasets handle concurrency by displaying a VCL TForm notifying the user that the table being opened is locked by another user and that the dataset is waiting for the lock to be released.
The form has a cancel button on it which lets the user cancel the lock wait.
The problem:
When using the proprietary datasets from within a thread, the application will crash, hang or give some error if the lock wait form it displayed. I suspect this is to do with the VCL not being thread safe.
I have solved the issue by synchronizing Dataset.Open however this holds up the main thread until the dataset.open returns, which can take a considerable amount of time depending on the complexity of the query.
I have displayed a modal progress bar which lets to user know that something it happening but I don't like this idea as the user will be sitting waiting for the progress bar to complete.
The proprietary dataset code is compiled into the main application, i.e. its not stored in a separate DLL. We are not allowed to change how the locking works or whether a form is displayed or not at this stage of the development process as we are too close to release.
Ideally I would like to have Dataset.open run in the controls thread as well instead of having the use the main thread, however this doesn't seem likely to work.
Can anyone else suggest a work around? please.
Fibers won't help you one bit, because they are in the Windows API solely to help ease porting old code that was written with cooperative multitasking in mind. Fibers are basically a form of co-routines, they all execute in the same process, have their own stack space, and the switching between them is controlled by the user code, not by the OS. That means that the switching between them can be made to occur only at times that are safe, so no synchronization issues. OTOH that means that only one fiber can be running within one thread at the same time, so using fibers with blocking code has the same characteristics as calling blocking code from within one thread - the application becomes unresponsive.
You could use fibers together with multiple threads, but that can be dangerous and doesn't bring any benefit over using threads alone.
I have used fibers successfully within VCL applications, but only for specific purposes. Forget about them if you want to deal with potentially blocking code.
As for your problem - you should make a control that is used for display purposes only, and which uses the standard inter-process communication mechanisms to exchange data with another process that accesses your database.
COM objects can run in out-of-process mode. May be in delphi it will be a bit easier to use them, then another IPC mechanisms.
How can you detect if your MFC application is not responding?
Either the same application can start a separate thread, or some other application can run its own thread and periodically call SendMessageTimeout() to send the WM_NULL message to the application in question. If it times out it means that the application is irresponsive.
If you're asking how to do it from within the process itself, you can't, it's a paradox. A blocked process can't detect if it is not responding. It'd be like someone waking himself up to ask himself if he's sleeping.
Based on this and your other question, I'd guess you have a long-running operation and you want the user to wait until it's finished. If they click your window before it's done they get "not responding" and may terminate the application too early.
You need to perform the long-running operation on a separate thread. Here's a great starting point: CodeProject article
How do you disable closing an application when it is not responding and just wait till it recovers back?
What you're asking is not just impossible (any user with sufficient priviledges can terminate a process...no matter what OS), it's a horrible User Experience (UX) decision.
Think about it from the User's point of view. You're sitting there looking at an application. The application doesn't appear to be doing anything and isn't providing you any visual feedback that it is doing work. You'd think the application was hung and you'd restart it.
You could do anything from showing a scrolling progress bar to having the long running process update some piece of information on the UI thread (think of an installer in mid-install...it's constantly telling you which files it's putting where rather than just making you wait). In any case, you should be providing some visual feedback to the user so they know your application is still running.
Have the GUI work in a separate thread so that it is (hopefully) never "not responding".
If this is a question about programming, your program should never be in that state since you've tied up the GUI thread somehow. And you can't (and shouldn't) stop Windows or the user from closing your program. They've detected your code is rubbish and have every right to forcefully toss it out of their valuable address space.
In any case, your program's too busy doing other stuff - if it can't respond to the user, it probably can't waste time protecting itself either.
At some point, developers need to get it through their thick skulls that the computer belongs to the user, not them.
Of course, if you're talking about how to configure Windows to prevent this (such as on your PC), then this question belongs on serverfault.
Don't. No matter how important you think your application is, your users' ability to control their own systems is more important.
You can always terminate applications from task manager if you have the privileges. You can just disable or not show the system menu options that has the close icon and close menu option in the application window but that is not going to prevent the user from terminating it from task manager as mentioned before. Instead, I would just show some busy processing icon in the application so the user understands what is going on.
Only thing you can do is disable the close button. Users can still kill it from task manager or similar tool, to way around that. You could make killing it harder by launching it as a privileged process, but that comes with many more problems of its own.