concurrent-programming

I have been implementing a program to compile and run other applications. I was wondering if there is a way to terminate a program when my application discovers that there is an issue e.g. infinite loop. I tried to using process.Destroy() but it kills the CMD not that actual program that has infinite loop... Your help is really appreciated. Here is a part of my code: synchronized (pro) { pro.wait(30000); } try{ pro.exitValue(); }catch (IllegalThreadStateException ex) { pro.destroy(); timeLimitExceededflag = true; System.out.println("NOT FINISHED123"); System.exit(0); } } Basically I am making

I'm only using this code for an example. Assume I have the following Person class. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace dictionaryDisplay { class Person { public string FirstName { get; private set;} public string LastName { get; private set; } public Person(string firstName, string lastName) { this.FirstName = firstName; this.LastName = lastName; } public override string ToString() { return this.FirstName + " " + this.LastName; } } } Main Program static void Main(string[] args) { ConcurrentDictionary<int, Person> personColl = new

Iam using below code for uploading images on the remote server.When I use below it is uploading all images cocurrently on remote server. List<Future<String>> futureList = new ArrayList<Future<String>>(); ExecutorService execService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(Images.size()); for (IImage image : Images) { try { //execService.execute(lServerRequest.new uploadImages(image.getDataPath(),image.getDisplayName())); singleFuture = execService.submit(lServerRequest.new uploadImages(image.getDataPath(),image.getDisplayName())); //Log.d("","singleFuture -------"+singleFuture.get()); futureList.add

I am thinking here: If you have 2 threads executing FAST operations that need to be synchronized, isn't a nonblocking approach faster/better than a blocking/context switch approach? By non-blocking I mean something like: while(true) { if (checkAndGetTheLock()) break; } The only thing I can think of is starvation (with CPU burn out) if you have too many threads looping around the lock. How do I balance one approach versus the other? Here's what Java Concurrency in Practice says about the subject: The JVM can implement blocking either via spin-waiting (repeatedly trying to acquire the lock until

Is it possible to perform an asynchronous wait (read : non-blocking) on a conditional variable in boost::asio ? if it isn't directly supported any hints on implementing it would be appreciated. I could implement a timer and fire a wakeup even every few ms, but this is approach is vastly inferior, I find it hard to believe that condition variable synchronization is not implemented / documented. If I understand the intent correctly, you want to launch an event handler, when some condition variable is signaled, in context of asio thread pool? I think it would be sufficient to wait on the

I am reading the book Java Concurrecny in practice. On page 85 section 5.2.1 it talks about the ConcurrentHashMap and its advantages. However, in one part, the books claims that the iterators returned by ConcurrentHashMap is weakly consistent. This means that this iterator can tolerate concurrent modification, traverses elements as they existed when iterator was constructed, and may (but not guaranteed to) reflect modifications to the collection after the construction of the iterator. From why I understand the whole point of synchronization in concurrent programs is to allow thread accessing a