I'm trying to SyncLock my DataTable, to avoid problems with multithreading and stuff. But it doesn't seems to work. I'm trying to lock a DataTable wich is acceseed inside a nested for-loop:
vb.net
SyncLock radiolopere
For Each row As DataRowView In tableview
[code].....
Is there a way to nest a datatable into another datatable? I know you can do this with gridviews but thats not what I'm looking for.
Also, I don't want to merge the datatables. What I'm trying to do is have a datatable with 2 columns and each column containing different datatables.
I was just wondering if mixing SyncLock blocks and Monitor.Enter/Exit statements is dangerous. I know SyncLock uses Monitor and a Try block in the background, but are there any problems with using the two together for thread synchronization?
View 1 RepliesI am pretty new to multi-threading in general and I would like to know how can I lock a shared integer variable to not be accessed by other threads while it is read/updated by an other thread.When I try do do SyncLock myInteger, I get that error : Error 6 'SyncLock' operand cannot be of type 'Integer' because 'Integer' is not a reference type.
Here a simplified example of what I mean
Private Shared myInteger As Integer
Private Sub MySub()
SyncLock myInteger ' This does not work
' read/write a new value to myInteger
End SyncLock
End Sub
MySub is called by multiple instances of the class, and running in multiple threads?
Is there simple way to SyncLock an object that can be null? And before you ask for it, yes, I know that it isn't logical to perform a SyncLock on a null variable. However, that would simplify my code because right now, I have no choice but to perform a null check all over the place before calling a SyncLock.
[Code]...
If I have two Synclocks
synclock a
synclock b
end synclock
[code].....
I was wondering if this is known / expected behavior. By design?Is it documented somewhere?
My 'real' code does need something to keep one thread from accessing a listview while another is busy clearing and refreshing the Items collection, so it's not as easy as omitting the synclock section in the example below (The SyncLock in my case is on the ListView).
This code, which can be pasted over a new empty form's user code class, deadlocks during the Invoke call. It doesn't reach the entry point of SetText (setting a brakpoint there, the deadlock occurs before the breakpoint is hit).[cod]e...
I have an application that requires several threads, otherwise the main UI thread would end up frozen.i am after a little advice as i have not really don alot of threaded applications.
First Question;
I have a thread which handles data coming in from the serial port( this wil become much more complicated), is it safe to use a synclock on the serialport object : -
[code]...
Suppose I have a byte array, Private Data as Byte(). This array is private within a class. The class provides public functions for reading and writing to Data. This class can be accessed by multiple threads, so I want to avoid a situation where reading from it and writing from it don't happen at the same time.
For now, I am using SyncLock to avoid issues. Can I put SyncLock Data in just the write functions, or does it need to be in the read functions? Or, both? I don't have a specific code example in mind. I am just curious if there is any benefit to locking for both read and write functions if the writing functions' SyncLock will make writing have exclusive access to it in the first place.
i have a datatable with some data, i need to select some of the data, and put that data in a new datatable.
View 1 RepliesI have a class that contains a List(of T) used in a multithreaded application. I have three methods Get, Add and Remove where these access and modify the List(of T). I was using SyncLock to lock m_List any time I queried it for the desired object as well as when I added or removed objects. However I'm curious as to if there is a performance gain by simply locking m_List when I add an object or remove an object as opposed to when I'm searching for a desired object?
[Code]...
I have a List of objects shared by multiple threads, it sometimes generate IndexOutOfRangeException when trying to Clear. While searching for solution I found that I should use SyncLock while accessing the List. But my question if what is the importance of lockObject in SyncLock block
E.g. while clearing myList
Can I use
Synclock myList
myList.Clear
End SyncLock
or lockObject should be different from myList?
What I think about sysnclock is "lock is obtained for object specified as lockObject". What if I specify list to be cleared as lockObject, shouldn't the compiler supposed to obtain the exclusive access to list before clearing it ?
Once again Invoke has come back to haunt me! I have an application that has some background threads, serial communications and obviously a GUI. Now, the serial ports received incoming messages as events and these get processed and incoming data is logged both to a file and also appended to a RTB in the GUI (done using Invoke if InvokeRequired is true).Now, under normal circumstances everything is super happy and runs quite nicely but when stressed I reach some sort of deadlock.
What happens is I have two methods AddOutput and RemoveOutput. These both sync over an object SyncOutput As Object. When messages are received on the serial port they are processed and depending on whether or not a response is required AddOutput is called. This adds out going messages to a dictionary which is then accessed by a thread and the messages are sent out. If an acknowledgement message is received then the corresponding message in the dictionary is removed.
[Code]...
If completedOrders.Count <> 0 Then
For i = 0 To completedOrders.Count - 1
SyncLock completedOrders
'Do some work, for example this:
Dim text As String = completedOrders(0).getCN & " " & completedOrders(0).getDeviceName & " "
End SyncLock
Next
End If
Is a synclock needed before the if statement or for loop? In other words. When you call methods like .length or .count is it necessary to synclock them or can another thread be writing to it at the same time. CompletedOrders is a generic list of a class.
Ok so I coded this app that generates a number/word and it will upload to my database. Speed wasn't the issue when my db was under 1million entry. Now that I got about 100million entry it takes a few mins to upload.I worked with threading before but now I want all my threads to access this function that will give them a string. Now here is the problem, if 2 or more thread access the function at the same time, it will crash.How can I by pass that?I read about SyncLock. Can I use SyncLock on my function on each thread?
View 1 RepliesSay I have some code that does this:
Public Function AppendToLogFile(ByVal s As String) As Boolean
Dim success As Boolean = True
Dim fs As IO.FileStream = Nothing
[Code].....
First of all: is it a problem that I have that Try/Catch/Finally block inside of a SyncLock?
Second of all: suppose this code runs, on an event, potentially many times within a small timeframe--say, ten times in one second. Is it OK to have it SyncLock like this, or would it make more sense to have it add a line to a Queue, and then write all the lines from the Queue to the file on a timer that goes off, say, every second?
Is it possible to skip a code block when a synclock is active?
For instance:
A object of class Bicycle is used by thread 1 and has a synclock on it.
Then thread 2 comes along and needs to know if the lights of the bike are working. But if there is a synclock active then thread 2 just forgets about checking the lights and goes to make a delicious chocolate pie.
Can someone who is using a 64 bit machine help me pintpoint this crash to either the VS2010 IDE itself or one of the plugins I have installed?
It's the code fragment below. When I copy & paste it into the Main() function of a new VB.Net console app on my Win7 64 bit machine, the VS IDE crashes and dies onthe spot, every time I try it.
Doing exactly the same on a 32 bit XP machine, nothing abnormal happens.
The 64 bit machine does have some IDE plug-ins installed, the biggest of which is DevExpress (the free version), so i think either one of those or the fact that the IDE is running on 64 bit must be the culprit.
This is the code. The static variable can also be made a module-level variable, with the same result.
I'm having trouble working out how to lock my application out of a section of code while it waits for a response from an external program've used Synclock on a section of code with the Me object in the expression. In this Synclock I call an overridden ShowDialog method of a dialog box, which has a timeout parameter, but does return the value from the underlying ShowDialog function call ,once the timer is setup. Works like this.
SyncLock Me
Dim frmDlgWithTimeout As New frmDlgWithTimeout ' dialog box with overridden ShowDialog '
Dim res As DialogResult = frmDlgWithTimeout.ShowDialog(10 * 1000) ' 10 sec timeout '
[code]....
i have some test code which i run at every load of a page in my asp.net website [Code] the "dotrace" simply add a record to a log table in the db. now the right result would be that i should have the entries in the db in order "entered","exiting","exited" but actually when i look in the db i see first 2 "entered" then 2 "exiting" etc. meaning that the multi-threading is working ok, but not the synclock. is that correct?
and how can this be fixed? the real code will be adding records to the db and might be called from several pages of different sessions, but the same code must not run twice concurrently. if i open multiple pages at once, they still clash some times. but if i'm correct, the issue is now not with the synclock as much as with the httpruntime.cache, because when using a standard property, on one page, the code works 100%. so how can i make sure that 2 threads, even from totally different sessions never run the trylock simultaneously?
I am trying to get a handle on SyncLock and multithreading, but I am having some trouble wrapping my head around exactly how it should be implemented. I have a Public Class Utilities with a many Shared Functions. I want to make sure that each function can only be executed when there are no other concurrent calls to the same function. So If I have 2 functions, A and B in a Public Class Utilities, what is the syntax so that a function "locks" while it is being executed, preventing any subsequent calls until the "locking" thread has completed?
CODE
Public Class Utilities
Public Shared Function A (ByRef i As Integer) As Integer
[CODE].............................
I know I need to wrap the statements of execution in a SyncLock block, but I am unsure of the scope of the parameter used with SyncLock...is it private to the function, class, etc? Can the same object be used to lock both functions if they are independent?
I am using Synclock to prevent multiple threads from logging text messages to the same file at the same time, but this doesn't seem to work:I get frequent sharing errors on the logfile, within the synclock block.The Synclock is using the variable holding the filename, because it exists all the time and because it is always the same object, whatever class instance or thread I'm in.[code]Despite using Synclock and a Using block around the code, I keep getting this error in the sw.WriteLine(Msg) line:System.IO.IOException: The process cannot access the file '(filename)' because it is being used by another process.Should I use some other type of object than a string to synchronize on?I cannot use a user interface object (button or so) because it is a windows service project.It was written and compiled in Visual Studio 2008, but targeting the 2.0 framework because it has to be able to run on some old Win2000 machines.
View 12 RepliesI'm on my way to MSDN but thought I'd stop by here first because the answers are usually more cogent.I have a test bed that mimmicks my product app. The general architecture is a factory that builds/instantiates a number of objects (device controllers) that are scalable in number based on requirement. Each object has a threaded portion that reads a device. This way, each object can read its own device simultaneously with all the others. To perform the read, the object calls a routine in a Module that houses the device interfaces. Interestingly (and happily), it seems like each thread has its own copy of the Module routine.
The test bed seems to verify what I'm seeing in the app. In the testbed, a 500 mil second delay is substituted for the device call. Even enclosing the test module portion that hosts the delay in a Synclock results in multi-threaded execution of the pseudo device call. I haven't tested for data yet, but this seems to indicate that when the module routine is called from controller object, it too carries it's own copy of the data just like the calling object. As a long time c++ programmer...that don't quite seem right.
I am trying to display value of the field ("UserID") for every row exists in datatable to checkboxlist(make the checkboxlist item selected).
I used for loop, but only the field value from last row of RoleUsers table is selected in the checkboxlist.
Here is my code
Private Sub DisplayRoleUser()
Dim conn As SqlConnection
Dim cmd As SqlCommand
[Code].....
I have a datatable and I apply a filter to the defaultview.rowfilter property of that datatable. If I then loop through the rows collection of the datatable, will I only be able to see those rows that the filter applies to, or will it loop through all the rows?
View 6 RepliesI am working on a project that takes an xml schema and xml data files and places them into a DataTable, the 2 files are generated from a working table that i have written to disk. I wish to load these 2 files into a DataTable. Here is What i have
vb.net
Friend Function CreateTable(ByVal tableName As String) As Boolean
Dim table As New DataTable(tableName)
table.ReadXmlSchema(tableName & ".xsd")
[code]....
this however produces the following error on line 3
Quote:
System.ArgumentException was unhandled Message=DataTable 'get_item_list' does not match to any DataTable in source.
get_item_list is the parameter passed into this function (tableName)
I have a datagridview bound to a datatable setting its datasource property to the datatable. I would like to have a child form that contains a list of columns associated with the datatable that contains a checkbox that will allow the user to hide and show the columns ( I do not know the best control to use here) (I assume this is the easy part as All i need to do is loop through each of the datatable's columns to get the column name)
now I would like save these visible columns on some event like form_closing so that the next time the user opens the form up it will remember the settings
I came across a problem with using a BindingSource as my DataGridViews.DataSource. Whenever I applied a filter to a column in the BindingSource and the user makes changes that don't match the column filter the DataGridViewRows would automatically disappear. A similar thing would happen when applying a Sort to a column. If the user made any changes the DridGirdViewRows would automatically sort causing rows to be moved around. This was not ideal for my application and there isn't anyway to stop this from happening with the BindingSource.
To correct this issue I have to use subsets of data. I use a DataView to apply the filter and sort to the main DataTable, which creates the subset DataTable.The problem is when I use the DataView.ToTable method I loose the Primary Key and RowError information. So I have to reapply this information everytime the user filters or sorts the DataGridView.Is there a better way to get a subset DataTable?[code]...
I have a datatable that has a resource in one field and hours used in another, it looks like this -
Resource Hours Used
Manager 1
Accountant 1
Field Staff 2
Accountant 3
Manager 4
Manager 1
Administrator 6
Field Staff 4
Manager 0.5
Administrator 1
What I want to do is be able to create a summary of the data table above that groups multiple occurrences of a resource and adds up the hours used for that resource, creating a summary that looks like this -
Resource Hours Used
Manager 6.5
Accountant 4
Field Staff 6
Administrator 7
Is there a simple way to assign a populated datatable's columns to another empty datatable? That is, I want to copy a datatable's structure only but not its data.
View 6 Replies