How do you handle update refresh rate from your worker function to your UI ?
Sending everything to the UI or maybe using a timer (from which side ? worker or UI ?)
In Windows apps, you generally want to use a Timer object in your GUI thread to poll for worker status -- it's easier, unless you have a really good reason to do something else...
You can't just make a function call to a UI routine from a worker thread in Windows. Undefined behavior will result, so watch out!
If your platform and development environment supports it some sort of asynchronis messaging system works well. Under Win32 I just use normal windows messages which I "post" (so they don't block the thread) and the standard main message thread of the UI picks up the messages and processes them. I usually define custom messages as well.
Using Timers is suboptimal, there should be no need to "poll" this sort of information.
Related
I am trying to turn my app multithreading. What I want to achieve is:
- Receive command via TidHTTPServer
- Execute local action (might involve using tidHTTP to send/receive data to other services)
- return execution result to the original caller
since I am pretty new to multi-threading I would like to know if my design-idea is correct
TMsgHandler=Class(TThread)
in TidHTTPServer.OnCommandGet I create a new instance of TMsgHandler and pass ARequestInfo and AResponseInfo
TMsgHandler.Excecute interprest the data
Can TMsgHandler.Execeute use Objects (descendants of TidHTTP) in my Main to communicate with other services?
TMsgHandler sends answer through AResponseInfo and terminates.
will this work?
This is not the correct design.
THTTPServer is a multi-threaded component. Its OnCommand... events are fired in the context of worker threads that Indy creates for you.
As such, you do not need to derive your TMsgHandler from TThread. Do your TIdHTTP directly in the context of the OnCommand... thread instead. A response will not be sent back to the client until your event handler exits (unless you send one manually). However, you should not share a single TIdHTTP from the main thread (unless you absolute need to, in which case you would need to synchronize access to it). You should create a new TIdHTTP dynamically directly in your OnCommand.../TMsgHandler code as needed.
I have a site that makes the standard data-bound calls, but then also have a few CPU-intensive tasks which are ran a few times per day, mainly by the admin.
These tasks include grabbing data from the db, running a few time-consuming different algorithms, then reuploading the data. What would be the best method for making these calls and having them run without blocking the event loop?
I definitely want to keep the calculations on the server so web workers wouldn't work here. Would a child process be enough here? Or should I have a separate thread running in the background handling all /api/admin calls?
The basic answer to this scenario in Node.js land is to use the core cluster module - https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/cluster.html
It is an acceptable API to :
easily launch worker node.js instances on the same machine (each instance will have its own event loop)
keep a live communication channel for short messages between instances
this way, any work done in the child instance will not block your master event loop.
I'm developing an application to track online Xbox Live, PSN, and Steam friends. The application performs a series of QNetworkRequests using a QNetworkAccessManager. The Xbox Live and PSN code use a QWebView to simulate a browser environment. The requests are performed correctly, but it slows down the main GUI thread until each request is finished.
Here's some example code:
void Steam::fetchFriends(QString username)
{
QNetworkRequest userXml("http://steamcommunity.com/id/" + username + "/friends/?xml=1");
m_nam->get(userXml);
}
I've created a signal to tell the GUI that friends have been downloaded and processed. Then the friends list is updated in the GUI. Some of my other code is more complex and it's possible that I need to move the processing code to another thread.
Can someone confirm that QNetworkAccessManager and QNetworkRequest are multithreaded or if they should be moved into separate threads?
QNetworkAccessManager is not threaded in its implementation. It is asynchronous and uses the event loop.
Those who claim they have needed to use it in a threaded state for performance reasons have noted that they need to create the instance specifically in the thread, and not try and move it to a thread. Here is a link to someone posting an example of such.
Before creating it in a separate thread, be sure first that you aren't doing any blocking operations that might cause the main thread to slow down.
I have a WCF web service hosted in IIS- This service has a method - lets call it DoSomething(). DoSomething() is called from a client-side application.
DoSomething performs some work and returns the answer to the user. Now I need to log how often DoSomething is being called. I can add it to the DoSomething function so that it will for every call write to an sql database and update a counter, but this will slow down the DoSomething method as the user needs to wait for this extra database call.
Is it a good option to let the DoSomething method spawn a new thread which will update the counter in the database, and then just return the answer from the DoSomething method to the user without waiting for the thread to finnish? Then I will not know if the database update fails, but that is not critical.
Any problems with spawning a new background thread and not wait for it to finnish in WCF? Or is there a better way to solve this?
Update: To ask the question in a little different way. Is it a bad idea to spawn new threads insde a wcf web service method?
The main issue is one of reliability. Is this a call you care about? If the IIS process crashes after you returned the response, but before your thread completes, does it matter? If no, then you can use client side C# tools. If it does matter, then you must use a reliable queuing technology.
If you use the client side then spawning a new thread just to block on a DB call is never the correct answer. What you want is to make the call async, and for that you use SqlCommand.BeginExecute after you ensure that AsyncronousProcessing is enabled on the connection.
If you need reliable processing then you can use a pattern like Asynchronous procedure execution which relies on persisted queues.
As a side note things like logging, or hit counts, and the like are a huge performance bottleneck if done in the naive approach of writing to the database on every single HTTP request. You must batch and flush.
If you want to only track a single method like DoSomething() in service then you can create an custom operation behavior and apply it over the method.
The operation behavior will contain the code that logs the info to database. In that operation behavior you can use the .NET 4.0's new TPL library to create a task that will take care of database logging. If you use TPL you don't need to worry about directly creating threads.
The advantage of using operation behvaior tomorrow you need to track another method then at that time instead of duplicating the code there you are just going to mark the method with the custom operation behavior. If you want to track all the methods then you should go for service behavior.
To know more about operation behaviors check http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.servicemodel.operationbehaviorattribute.aspx
To know more about TPL(Task Parallel Library) check http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd460717.aspx
I haven't used threading in my program before. But there is a problem I am having with this 3rd party application.
It is an offsite backup solution and it has a server and many clients. We have an admin console to manage all the clients and that is where there is a problem.
If one of the client side application gets stuck, or is running in a broken condition, the admin console waits forever to get a response and does not display anything.
$for(client= client1; client < last_client; client++){
if (getOServConnection(client, &socHandler)!=NULL) { .. }
}
I want two solutions to this. I want to know if there is anyway, I can set a timeout for the function getOServConnection, so that I get a response within X seconds.
And, I want to know how to call this function in parallel for all clients, so that I get the response from all clients within X seconds.
the getOServConnection contains a WSAConnect call, and I don't want to use any options on the socket, since it is used by other modules and it will affect the application severely.
First.. If you move the call that hangs into a separate thread you can use the main thread for starting a timer an waiting for the timeout. If you are using Visual C++ and if you are in Win32 you can use the (rather old) MFC based timer. Once this timer expires it will launch a function call OnTimer. This timer does not affect your application's main thread as it works in a different system based thread.
Second.. If you need to start any number of threads with that connection you should start thinking of a design pattern to use for that. You could use a fixed number of threads, and in that case you may want to use a object pool. Or if the number of threads is (relatively) limitless you may want to use a factory method