Here is a simple question.
suppose that I have a very long loop to execute, It would be nice to keep the user informed about the progressing right? I would print for example the number of loops that have been executed so far and how many are remaining.
The problem that I have is those output wouldn't be visualized until the the loop is finished, and thus there will be no point for them to be displayed.
I'm sure that there is some method in dart that can some sort of a handler to the browser to execute tasks and events whenever I want to and keep running the loop.
I'm new to dart, I hope that someone could answer this question.
Thank you.
PS: If you don't know how to, you can give me any ideas of keywords that I can use to look for this particular feature in dart documentation, it will be very helpful.
You can dig into Isolates, which allow background work on supported browsers.
https://api.dartlang.org/docs/channels/stable/latest/dart_isolate.html
Nothing as simple as DoEvents(), but all of the pieces are there.
I think too that Isolates are the best approach but wasn't successful using them on the browser a while ago, but there was a bigger refactoring going on lately in Isolates.
Does anyone know of a current client side Isolates example?
The API doc referenced by #kevmoo contains a link to an Isolates article that doesn't exist anymore (maybe must be rewritten due to the mentioned refactoring).
Another approach would be a method that returns after a chunk of work and gets recalled repeated in a loop until it returns for example true for done (false for not yet).
When you call this method using scheduleMicrotask(doChunk) or new Timer(() => doChunk()) other tasks get some air (import 'dart:async';) each time before the method gets actually called.
Related
Let's say that I call MailboxProcessor.PostAndReply, which may run for a very long time due to whatever reasons. What would happen if I call MailboxProcessor.Post from some other thread while the first call has not returned yet?
What I mean is, yeah, sure, I can write a test that would recreate this situation. However, before I start reinventing the bicycle, I wonder if anyone already knows the answer on this question.
Thanks a lot!
The short answer: no, it doesn't block.
The longer version:
Mailbox processor uses a regular Queue<T> instead of a ConcurrentQueue<T> - which means posting uses a lock to enqueue, meaning that if a post were to be called from two different threads, one would block the thread till the other call returned - which would happen very fast, but block.
tl;dr: Post does not block is so far as no actual work is done on posting.
First time learning about concurrency and threading within Rails, so any advice is very appreciated.
I currently have an array of 50 strings. I have an 3rd party API call that takes in the string and returns a numeric value. Right now I am simply calling the API on each string one at a time, which takes a really long time.
After looking at a few SO like this one, this other one and finally this one, it seems like I have to use some sort of threading to achieve what I want to do. My plan is to break down the array into batches of ten strings, and then run 5 API calls on each array of ten strings concurrently in hopes that it will drastically reduce the time.
I've never done threading of any kind with rails before, so I just wondering if I am on the right track following the third SO post above, or if I should use other techniques that may be better for my need.
The approach you take will depend on your use case. Do you need to wait for all the calls to be made to do something with the result? Can it be asynchronous?
If you are looking into threads to distribute the work then the third SO post you mentioned is a good way to do it.
If your use case permits the process to be async, I'd definitely look into a scheduler, as mentioned in the first SO post. I've use DelayedJob for this goal, there are some other alternatives.
On a related topic, I usually implement a micro-service that receives those requests and processes them async instead of having DelayedJob in the same app, but is just a matter of preference.
Something REALLY important to have in mind if you go with the async approach is that if you are accessing ActiveRecord records inside a thread you need to explicitly check out the database connection. Rails only handles the check in/out of connections in the main thread. Be really careful on this since it can cause connection leaks really hard to track.
The first answer on this SO post shows how to ensure the db connection to be released.
Hope that helps.
Does anyone know of any good resources that fully explain how functions and results will fire in an Adobe AIR app where multiple things are happening at once?
As a simple test, I've created a single service that I just keep changing the url of, then issuing a send(). It seems that no matter how many send() calls I put in, all of these get executed before the 'result' eventListener function gets called for the first time.
Is this how it works? i.e. the current function gets fully executed, with the async returns queueing up to be processed after AIR has finished what it's currently doing.
Likewise, if the user does something while all this is going on, I presume their request goes to the back of the queue as well?
All that makes sense, but I'm just wondering if it's documented anywhere.
While I'm on one, is it recommended practice to reuse the same HTTPService in this way, or is it better to create one for each concurrent transaction? Just because it works, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do...
I'm not aware of any documentation that explains this, but I can confirm that code blocks get executed before async calls are made, or at least before their result is being processed. If it didn't work that way, you would for instance not always be able to attach a responder to a token of a service call, because the result might already have been processed.
var token:AsyncToken = myService.someMethod();
token.addResponder(new Responder(resultHandler, faultHandler));
Developers coming from other platforms find this strange as they would expect the assignment of the responder to be too late.
So while I don't have an official explanation about the technical details inside the Flash Player, I can assure that it works this way.
If the user does something while a call is pending, the new request will indeed just be added as a new asynchronous call. Note that we can't realy speak of a queue, as there is no guarantee that the response of the first call comes in before the response of the second call. This depends on how much time the actual requests take.
You can perfectly reuse an HTTPService instance.
PS: Based on this, we were able to build the Operation API in Spring ActionScript. It is basically an API that allows you to execute asynchronous processes in a uniform way, without having to worry about the details of the actual async process.
The following code executes an async process and attaches a handler to it. This is also something that puzzles many developers at first, for reasons similar to the asyncToken situation.
var operation:IOperation = doSomeOperation();
operation.addCompleteListener(aCompleteHandler);
operation.addErrorListener(anErrorHandler);
Recently, I have encountered many difficulties when I was developing using C++ and Lua. My situation is: for some reason, there can be thousands of Lua-states in my C++ program. But these states should be same just after initialization. Of course, I can do luaL_loadlibs() and lua_loadfile() for each state, but that is pretty heavy(in fact, it takes a rather long time for me even just initial one state). So, I am wondering the following schema: What about keeping a separate Lua-state(the only state that has to be initialized) which is then cloned for other Lua-states, is that possible?
When I started with Lua, like you I once wrote a program with thousands of states, had the same problem and thoughts, until I realized I was doing it totally wrong :)
Lua has coroutines and threads, you need to use these features to do what you need. They can be a bit tricky at first but you should be able to understand them in a few days, it'll be well worth your time.
take a look to the following lua API call I think it is what you exactly need.
lua_State *lua_newthread (lua_State *L);
This creates a new thread, pushes it on the stack, and returns a pointer to a lua_State that represents this new thread. The new thread returned by this function shares with the original thread its global environment, but has an independent execution stack.
There is no explicit function to close or to destroy a thread. Threads are subject to garbage collection, like any Lua object.
Unfortunately, no.
You could try Pluto to serialize the whole state. It does work pretty well, but in most cases it costs roughly the same time as normal initialization.
I think it will be hard to do exactly what you're requesting here given that just copying the state would have internal references as well as potentially pointers to external data. One would need to reconstruct those internal references in order to not just have multiple states pointing to the clone source.
You could serialize out the state after one starts up and then load that into subsequent states. If initialization is really expensive, this might be worth it.
I think the closest thing to doing what you want that would be relatively easy would be to put the states in different processes by initializing one state and then forking, however your operating system supports it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(operating_system)
If you want something available from within Lua, you could try something like this:
How do you construct a read-write pipe with lua?
Experiencing jquery in rails through .js.erb templates; but completely puzzled by a simple problem : for some reason, when a certain controller's action is called, it is recalled like two or three times. and on top of that, the number of recalls to the same action increase as the page is used. so i quickly end up with long loops over the same action...
there's a real logic in this bug, but still, can get hat it is and how to solve it.
ay experiences with tose kind of problems ?
Try unbind(ing) the event before attaching it. that helps with my stuff from time to time.
If you are using the live keyword then stop using it. if you are not, then try using it. i know that sounds like rubbish advice but i have done these steps in the past to fix issues exactly like you describe.
also, if on your success of the jquery call, ensure you are not rebinding events on a set of objects defined by a class. that will also add events to controls.