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
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.
I have a site which sometimes takes particularly long to process a request (and that's not a defect). 99% of the time it's pretty quick because it almost doesn't do any processing.
I want to show a message that says "Loading" when the site takes long to process the request. My site uses mod_wsgi and Apache. The way I see it, I would respond saying 'Loading' before completing the processing and do one of two things right before:
-spawn a (daemon) thread to take care of the processing.
-communicate through socket with other process and tell it to take care of the processing (most likely send request to http://localhost:8080/do_processing).
What are the pros and cons of one approach vs the other?
Using a separate process is better. It does not have to be hard at all as suggested in another answer as you can use an existing system for doing exactly that such as Celery (http://celeryproject.org/). Relying on in process threads is not necessarily a good idea unless you are going to implement an internal job queueing system of your own to prevent blowing out of number of threads. Also, in a multiprocess server configuration you cant be guaranteed a request comes back to the same process and so not easy to get status of a running operation. Finally, the web server processes could get killed off and thus your background task could also be killed before it finishes. You would need to have a mechanism for holding state which can survive such an event if that was important. Far easier to use something like Celery.
The process route requires quite a bit of a system processing. Creation of a separate process is relatively expensive and slow. However if your process crashes it doesn't affect your main governing process (you will receive the exit status code and will have an opportunity to respawn a new working process). You will also need some sort of InterProcessCommunication layer (can be a socket, pipe, shared memory, etc...) which is adds to complexity if your project.
Threads are lightweight and cheap. All you need to do is to manage concurrent access to shared resources. So it really depends on the task you have in mind. Threads probably will be more likely the appropriate way to implement your task.
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.
I am new to linux and writing a service in C++ which spawns multiple threads and I am starting the service by calling it from init.d, but how should I send the terminate signal to my application from the script , so that my service terminates all the threads and exits.
And also where can I find the source code for any linux services. e.g. /etc.init.d/rc5.d/S14cron . It will be helpful in understanding how to implement a service.
The classic reference for this kind of question is Steven's "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment". You can find the source code to this text book here.
Depends what your application does.
Personally I'd keep a thread just for handling signals and call sigprocmask in the other threads to stop signals being delivered to them.
The main thread / signal handling thread (it is usually a good idea to make this the main thread) can then send a message to its threads to tell them to finish what they're doing and quit.
Alternatively, if you like the principle of crash-only, you could just call exit_group and be done with it :)