Im facing a potential chase error. Im using javafx TableView to display my data, and I'm periodically receiving an update request externally which calls my update function. I also have some listeners which does stuff such as handle mousedrag events etc. What i want to do is to do something like this:
private void handleEvent(){
TableView.setRowFactory(new Callback<TableView<MyModel>, TableRow<MyModel>>(){
public TableRow<MyModel> call(TableView<MyModel> p) {
final TableRow row = new TableRow();
row.setOnDragDetected(new EventHandler<MouseEvent>(){
public void handle(){
//implement some kind of lock to prevent receiving data update
}
}
row.setOnMouseDragExited(new EventHandler<MouseDragEvent>(){
//release lock to accept update
}
}
}
//this method is being called externally periodically
public void updateModel(MyModel model){
//this won't work because it will skip entirely if it's locked,
//I want it to instead run later when lock is released
if (!locked){
this.model = model;
}
}
I did a quick workaround by using a Boolean to lock and unlock as shown in updateModel Method, problem with that is it will lose some updated data because it's skipped entirely.. instead, I want it to run later when lock is released.. how can I implement this kind of lock mechanism and run later feature?
Edit: why I suspect this is because my listeners are manipulating and getting table data.. while the data is constantly updated, I'm not sure if this is causing my table to break.
Just write some logic that collects everything you tried to do in a locked state and executes it on unlocking.
The following code assumes you're using Platform.runLater or similar code that makes the update run on the application thread.
public class UpdateSynchronizer {
private final List<Runnable> pendingUpdates = new ArrayList<>();
private boolean locked = false;
public void lock() {
if (locked) {
throw new IllegalStateException("double lock");
} else {
locked = true;
}
}
public void runUpdate(Runnable updater) {
if (updater == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
if (locked) {
pendingUpdates.add(updater);
} else {
updater.run();
}
}
public void unlock() {
for (Runnable r : pendingUpdates) {
try {
r.run();
} catch(Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace(); // print but ignore
}
}
pendingUpdates.clear();
locked = false;
}
}
If the last update always overwrites all the data from previous updates, simply keeping a single Runnable instead of a list of them would be more performant.
private final UpdateSynchronizer synchronizer = new UpdateSynchronizer();
// why did all the keywords start with uppercase letters (compile time error)
private void handleEvent(){
TableView.setRowFactory(new Callback<TableView<myModel>, TableRow<myModel>>(){
public TableRow<myModel> call(TableView<myModel> p) {
final TableRow row = new TableRow();
row.setOnDragDetected(new EventHandler<MouseEvent>(){
public void handle(){
synchronizer.lock();
//implement some kind of lock to prevent receiving data update
}
}
row.setOnMouseDragExited(new EventHandler<MouseDragEvent>(){
//release lock to accept update
synchronizer.unlock();
}
}
}
//this method is being called externally periodically
public void updateModel(myModel model){
synchronizer.runUpdate(() -> {
// this is just an assignment and won't have any side effects
// updates to the scene may only happen, if the model is accessed in some event handler or animation
this.model = model;
});
}
Related
I have an Activity A that consists of Fragment A. Inside Fragment A, I start Activity B with startActivityForResult(). When I receive the result from Activity B, all views values in Fragment A that had already been set before return to their default values. How to retain the all views values in Fragment A?
Below is the implementation:
public class MainFragment extends Fragment {
public MainFragment() {
}
#Override
public View onCreateView(LayoutInflater inflater, ViewGroup container,
Bundle savedInstanceState) {
return inflater.inflate(R.layout.fragment_main, container, false);
}
#Override
public void onActivityCreated(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onActivityCreated(savedInstanceState);
listView = (ListView) getActivity().findViewById(R.id.xlistview);
xItemArrayList = new ArrayList<XItem>();
}
#Override
public boolean onOptionsItemSelected(MenuItem item) {
int id = item.getItemId();
switch (id){
case R.id.menu_item_add:
initialiseList();
return true;
default:
return super.onOptionsItemSelected(item);
}
}
private void initialiseList(){
xListAdapter = new xListAdapter(getContext(), R.layout.item_list, xItemArrayList);
xListAdapter.setxListListener(new xListListener() {
#Override
public void onClickStart(View view) {
openAutocompleteActivity(Constant.VIEW_START);
}
});
xListView.setAdapter(xListAdapter);
}
private void openAutocompleteActivity(int selectedView) {
this.selectedView = selectedView;
try {
// The autocomplete activity requires Google Play Services to be available. The intent
// builder checks this and throws an exception if it is not the case.
Intent intent = new PlaceAutocomplete.IntentBuilder(PlaceAutocomplete.MODE_FULLSCREEN).build(getActivity());
startActivityForResult(intent, Constant.REQUEST_CODE_AUTOCOMPLETE);
} catch (GooglePlayServicesRepairableException e) {
// Indicates that Google Play Services is either not installed or not up to date. Prompt the user to correct the issue.
GoogleApiAvailability.getInstance().getErrorDialog(getActivity(), e.getConnectionStatusCode(), 0 ).show();
} catch (GooglePlayServicesNotAvailableException e) {
// Indicates that Google Play Services is not available and the problem is not easily resolvable.
String message = "Google Play Services is not available: " + GoogleApiAvailability.getInstance().getErrorString(e.errorCode);
Log.e(Constant.TAG_ERROR, message);
Toast.makeText(getActivity(), message, Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
}
}
#Override
public void onActivityResult(int requestCode, int resultCode, Intent data) {
super.onActivityResult(requestCode, resultCode, data);
// Check that the result was from the autocomplete widget.
if (requestCode == Constant.REQUEST_CODE_AUTOCOMPLETE) {
if (resultCode == Constant.RESULT_OK) {
// Get the user's selected place from the Intent.
Place place = PlaceAutocomplete.getPlace(getActivity(), data);
if (selectedView == Constant.VIEW_START){
start = place;
((TextView)xListView.getChildAt(0).findViewById(R.id.textview_start)).setText(start.getName());
}else if (selectedView == Constant.VIEW_LAST){
last = place;
((TextView)xListView.getChildAt(0).findViewById(R.id.textview_last)).setText(last.getName());
}
} else if (resultCode == PlaceAutocomplete.RESULT_ERROR) {
Status status = PlaceAutocomplete.getStatus(getActivity(), data);
Log.e(Constant.TAG_ERROR, "Error: Status = " + status.toString());
} else if (resultCode == Constant.RESULT_CANCELED) {
// Indicates that the activity closed before a selection was made. For example if
// the user pressed the back button.
}
}
}
There are two views in R.layout.item_list, R.id.textview_start and R.id.textview_last. On select each of the view, Activity B will start and on finish Activity B, the result will be displayed on the view itself. However, every time Activity B starts and finishes, previous values of the two views disappear and return to default. I have tried SavedInstanceState, but it does not work. It seems when Activity B returns to Activity A (with Fragment A in it), system goes to OnResume() of Fragment A without going to onCreatedView() of Fragment A.
You can use 2 method:
1st: use sharedpreferences to store the data. Now this data is accessible next time also the app is used. So after displaying the old data, just reset the data in sharepreferences to blank.
2nd: use bundle to transfer data to the activity and then just retrieve the same back.
Use a bundle to transfer data from one activity to another activity
Bundle bundle = new Bundle();
bundle.putString("KEY_NAME", "Abrakadabra");
Intent i = new Intent(this, MyActivityName.class);
i.putExtras(bundle);
startActivity(i) <-- new activity started
Then in the receiving activity: Put this code in the onCreate method
Bundle bundle = getIntent().getExtras();
String stringdata = bundle.getString("KEY_NAME");
To pass data from activity to fragment: Put this code anywhere
Bundle bundle = new Bundle();
bundle.putString("KEY_NAME", "Abrakadabra");
MyFragment myfragment = new MyFragment();
myfragment.setArguments(bundle);
Then in the onCreateView method of the fragment add this code
Bundle args = getArguments();
String stringdata = args.getString("KEY_NAME");
Since Fragment A is waiting for Activity B's result, Activity A (where Fragment A is) will go to pause state. When Activity B returns results, Fragment A will resumes without going through onActivityCreated(). Thus, saving instance state will not work. Currently, the only solution I can think of is as below.
public void onActivityResult(int requestCode, int resultCode, Intent data) {
super.onActivityResult(requestCode, resultCode, data);
// Check that the result was from the autocomplete widget.
if (requestCode == Constant.REQUEST_CODE_AUTOCOMPLETE) {
if (resultCode == Constant.RESULT_OK) {
// Get the user's selected place from the Intent.
Place place = PlaceAutocomplete.getPlace(getActivity(), data);
if (selectedView == Constant.VIEW_START){
start = place;
}else if (selectedView == Constant.VIEW_LAST){
last = place;
}
} else if (resultCode == PlaceAutocomplete.RESULT_ERROR) {
Status status = PlaceAutocomplete.getStatus(getActivity(), data);
Log.e(Constant.TAG_ERROR, "Error: Status = " + status.toString());
} else if (resultCode == Constant.RESULT_CANCELED) {
// Indicates that the activity closed before a selection was made. For example if
// the user pressed the back button.
}
}
if(start!=null)((TextView)xListView.getChildAt(0).findViewById(R.id.textview_start)).setText(start.getName());
if(last!=null)((TextView)xListView.getChildAt(0).findViewById(R.id.textview_last)).setText(last.getName());
}
All the views values are re-set in onActivityResult(). When Activity A/Fragment A goes into pause state, it retains global variables values. Thus, for this implementation to work, start and last must be declared as global variables in Fragment A. Please suggest a better solution, if any.
Has anyone used CreateBookmark() with BookmarkOptions.NonBlocking?
I'm trying to use it with MultipleResume option but seems I cannot even resume.
Bookmark activity:
public InArgument<string> BookmarkName { get; set; }
public InArgument<BookmarkOptions> BookmarkOptions { get; set; }
protected override void Execute(NativeActivityContext context)
{
var options = BookmarkOptions.Get(context);
context.CreateBookmark(BookmarkName.Get(context),
ReadCompleteCallback,options);
}
Test Code:
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
InitWorkflow();
wfat = WorkflowApplicationTest.Create(sm);
wfat.TestActivity();
Assert.IsTrue(wfat.WaitForIdleEvent());
var res = wfat.TestWorkflowApplication.ResumeBookmark("First", "data");
Assert.IsTrue(res == BookmarkResumptionResult.Success, "Resumption fail with result:" + res);
Assert.IsTrue(wfat.Bookmarks.Contains("First"), "No first bkmk");
}
private void InitWorkflow()
{
sm = new StateMachine()
{
States =
{ //First state with non blocking bookmark
new State(){
DisplayName = "First",Entry = new BookmarkActivity(){BookmarkName = "First",BookmarkOptions =
BookmarkOptions.NonBlocking | BookmarkOptions.MultipleResume},
Transitions =
{
new Transition(){ }
}
}, //Second state with blocking bookmark
new State(){
DisplayName = "Second",Entry = new BookmarkActivity(){BookmarkName = "Second",BookmarkOptions =
BookmarkOptions.None},
Transitions =
{
new Transition(){ }
}
},
new State(){
DisplayName = "End",
IsFinal = true
}
}
};
sm.InitialState = sm.States[0];
sm.InitialState.Transitions[0].To = sm.States[1];
sm.States[1].Transitions[0].To = sm.States[2];
}
Result of ResumeBookmark in above test code is 'NotFound'
I would appreciate any working code that demonstrates NonBlocking option.
Even NonBlocking bookmarks are removed when the activity that created it is completed. They allow the activity to continue execution but that's it.
Bottom line you've to maintain an activity in a not completed state (usually the outside activity) and everything inside it will execute even when a NonBlocking bookmark is found.
That's why you're getting a NotFound error. The activity that created the bookmark has ended and the bookmark no longer exists.
P.S.: A somehow usual use case for NonBlocing bookmarks is, for example, when you've a long running activity, that might throw exceptions while executing, and that way you've the possibility to resume the workflow at a previous state.
I have a Silverlight project which takes some encrypted string thru its Service Reference: DataService (service which is done in an ASP.NET project).
The method from TransactionServices.cs to get the encrypted string is:
public void GetEncryptedString(string original)
{
DataService.DataServiceClient dataSvc = WebServiceHelper.Create();
dataSvc.GetEncryptedStringCompleted += new EventHandler<SpendAnalyzer.DataService.GetEncryptedStringCompletedEventArgs>(dataSvc_GetEncryptedStringCompleted);
dataSvc.GetEncryptedStringAsync(original);
}
On completing, put the result in encodedString var (which is initialized with an empty value):
void dataSvc_GetEncryptedStringCompleted(object sender, SpendAnalyzer.DataService.GetEncryptedStringCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error == null)
{
try
{
if (e.Result == null) return;
this.encodedString = e.Result;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Logger.Error("TransactionService.cs: dataSvc_GetEncryptedStringCompleted: {0} - {1}",
ex.Message, ex.StackTrace);
MessageBox.Show(ex.ToString());
}
}
}
Now I want to get the encoded string from my MainPage.xaml like:
TransactionService ts = new TransactionService();
ts.GetEncryptedString(url);
Console.WriteLine(ts.encodedString);
I do not uderstand why ts.encodedString is empty. When I do the debug I see that it actually prints out empty and AFTER that it goes to the void dataSvc_GetEncryptedStringCompleted to take the result and fill it.
Can you point me what I've done wrong? Is there a way to wait for the encodedString to be fetched and only after that to continue?
Thanks a lot.
When you call the ts.GetEncryptedString(url); you just started async operation. And therefor the value you are accessing is will be set only in the callback method.
But you access it before the value is modified by the callback.
The solution which I am using will looks similar to folowing:
Redefine the GetEncryptedString method signature.
public void GetEncryptedString(string original, Action callback)
{
DataService.DataServiceClient dataSvc = WebServiceHelper.Create();
dataSvc.GetEncryptedStringCompleted += (o,e) =>
{
dataSvc_GetEncryptedStringCompleted(o,e);
callback();
}
dataSvc.GetEncryptedStringAsync(original);
}
Call it like this:
ts.GetEncryptedString(url, OtherLogicDependantOnResult);
where
OtherLogicDependantOnResult is
void OtherLogicDependantOnResult()
{
//... Code
}
Greetings, creating my first MVVM based WPF app and trying to figure out why I'm unable to hook into the PropertyChanged event of a dependency property.
Code in the parent view model:
void createClients()
{
var clients = from client in Repository.GetClients()
select new ClientViewModel(Repository, client);
foreach (var client in clients)
{
client.PropertyChanged += onClientPropertyChanged;
}
Clients = new ViewableCollection<ClientViewModel>(clients);
Clients.CollectionChanged += onClientsCollectionChanged;
}
// Never gets called
void onClientPropertyChanged(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.PropertyName == "Name")
{
//...
}
}
ViewableCollection is a simple extension of ObservableCollection to encapsulate a View.
In the ClientViewModel the setters are being called but RaisePropertyChanged isn't working as I would expect, because onClientPropertyChanged isn't being invoked. Both view models inherit from ViewModelBase.
public string Name
{
get { return client.Name; }
set
{
if (value == client.Name) return;
client.Name = value;
RaisePropertyChanged("Name");
}
}
If I wire up PropertyChanged to a method inside the ClientViewModel then it is being fired, so I'm stumped as to why this isn't working in the parent view model. Where am I going wrong?
This SO question explains the problem; ObservableCollection protects the PropertyChanged event.
One solution is to use MVVM-Light Messenger:
void createClients()
{
var clients = from client in Repository.GetClients()
select new ClientViewModel(Repository, client);
Clients = new ViewableCollection<ClientViewModel>(clients);
Clients.CollectionChanged += onClientsCollectionChanged;
Messenger.Default.Register<PropertyChangedMessage<string>>(this, (pcm) =>
{
var clientVM = pcm.Sender as ClientViewModel;
if (clientVM != null && pcm.PropertyName == "Name")
{
// ...
}
});
}
createClients() should be refactored, but for consistency with the question code I'll leave it in there. Then a slight change to the property setter:
public string Name
{
get { return client.Name; }
set
{
if (value == client.Name) return;
string oldValue = client.Name;
client.Name = value;
RaisePropertyChanged<string>("Name", oldValue, value, true);
}
}
I have run into this problem across multiple programming languages and I was just wondering what the best way to handle it is.
I have three method calls that fire off asynchronously. Each one has a callback. I want to do something only when all three callbacks have completed.
What is the best way to code this? I usually end up with all these public bool flags and as you add more calls the code gets more convoluted.
Coming from C#, I would probably use WaitHandle.WaitAll. You can create an array of ManualResetEvent objects (one for each task to be completed), and pass that array to WaitAll. The threaded tasks will get one ManualResetEvent object each, and call the Set method when they are ready. WaitAll will block the calling thread until all tasks are done. I'll give a C# code example:
private void SpawnWorkers()
{
ManualResetEvent[] resetEvents = new[] {
new ManualResetEvent(false),
new ManualResetEvent(false)
};
// spawn the workers from a separate thread, so that
// the WaitAll call does not block the main thread
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((state) =>
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(Worker1, resetEvents[0]);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(Worker2, resetEvents[1]);
WaitHandle.WaitAll(resetEvents);
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(AllTasksAreDone));
});
}
private void AllTasksAreDone()
{
// OK, all are done, act accordingly
}
private void Worker1(object state)
{
// do work, and then signal the waiting thread
((ManualResetEvent) state).Set();
}
private void Worker2(object state)
{
// do work, and then signal the waiting thread
((ManualResetEvent)state).Set();
}
Note that the AllTasksAreDone method will execute on the thread pool thread that was used to spawn the workers, and not on the main thread... I assume that many other languages have similar constructs.
If you really only want to wait for all to finish:
Create volatile counter
Synchronize access to counter
Increase counter on start
Decrease on callback fired
Wait for counter to reach 0
Use a semaphore.
Futures are very easy to use. Futures look like normal functions, except that they execute asynch.
The classes:
public struct FutureResult<T>
{
public T Value;
public Exception Error;
}
public class Future<T>
{
public delegate R FutureDelegate<R>();
public Future(FutureDelegate<T> del)
{
_del = del;
_result = del.BeginInvoke(null, null);
}
private FutureDelegate<T> _del;
private IAsyncResult _result;
private T _persistedValue;
private bool _hasValue = false;
private T Value
{
get
{
if (!_hasValue)
{
if (!_result.IsCompleted)
_result.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
_persistedValue = _del.EndInvoke(_result);
_hasValue = true;
}
return _persistedValue;
}
}
public static implicit operator T(Future<T> f)
{
return f.Value;
}
}
Here I use futures to simulate a deadlock:
void SimulateDeadlock()
{
Future> deadlockFuture1 = new Future>(() =>
{
try
{
new SystemData(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["DbConnectionString"].ConnectionString)
.SimulateDeadlock1(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 0, 0, 2));
return new FutureResult { Value = true };
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return new FutureResult { Value = false, Error = ex };
}
});
Future> deadlockFuture2 = new Future>(() =>
{
try
{
new SystemData(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["DbConnectionString"].ConnectionString)
.SimulateDeadlock2(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 0, 0, 2));
return new FutureResult { Value = true };
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return new FutureResult { Value = false, Error = ex };
}
});
FutureResult result1 = deadlockFuture1;
FutureResult result2 = deadlockFuture2;
if (result1.Error != null)
{
if (result1.Error is SqlException && ((SqlException)result1.Error).Number == 1205)
Console.WriteLine("Deadlock!");
else
Console.WriteLine(result1.Error.ToString());
}
else if (result2.Error != null)
{
if (result2.Error is SqlException && ((SqlException)result2.Error).Number == 1205)
Console.WriteLine("Deadlock!");
else
Console.WriteLine(result2.Error.ToString());
}
}
For those using JavaScript, consider using the pattern discussed at this Stackoverflow question:
javascript: execute a bunch of asynchronous method with one callback