Well, in my case i got one server thread and one worker thread. Server thread first do all preparations, call listen and then call AcceptEx, and then just sleep. Every next call for AcceptEx occurs in worker thread, which processes everything. I am just wondering, how one worker thread can process everything? And more then one client? I am familiar with regular sockets, where you create a new thread for each accepted socket, but in this case i should just update my IO port with this newly created socket and worker thread will operate on every socket and every client connection?
I may not be following all your steps, but it appears all your threads end up waiting for socket accepts so everything is deadlocked.
Here's what I do...
Create a listener thread. Its job is to accept incoming connections and queue up the first completion job on the I/O completion port. I personally don't use AcceptEx anymore. I use a regular listener socket (bind()) and use an event (::WSAEventSelect(hListenSocket, hNetEvent, FD_ACCEPT);) to wake my listener thread when a connection request arrives. The listener thread proc just loops waiting on the event (and also a termination event for shutdown time). It looks like this:
1) creates a socket for the connection using ::WSAAccept()
2) creates an object of a class representing a client connection and adds this object to a collection
3) associates the new socket with the completion port using ::CreateIoCompletionPort()
4) creates/initializes a custom overlapped structure
5) Queues up a receive operation on the completion port using WSARecv()
That's it. I don't go to another thread to do the accept or anything else. From my OnAccept() call onward, the completion port threads handle all I/O.
For the I/O completion port I use a thread class. I create a pool of threads of this class, generally two threads per processor core works well. Pointers to these objects are kept in a collection so I can queue up a shutdown thread command for each pool thread on the completion port at shutdown time. The thread proc simply loops, waiting on ::GetQueuedCompletionStatus(), and handling each queued completion command, whether it be a receive, send, or exit thread command (determined by an opcode in the custom overlapped struct). I generally use a request-reply protocol (because it's easy, although I have added some unidirectional communication at times) so each processed receive command queues up a send command, and each processed send command queues up a receive command, all re-using the same custom overlapped struct.
Note: In case you didn't know...It's a common sockets programming mistake to assume the number of bytes requested to send or receive will all be sent or received in one call. This applies to I/O completion ports as well. Be prepared to handle sending or receiving remaining bytes when a completion event occurs. I personally track this in the custom overlapped struct.
Hey Mark, thanks for your reply - i was in fact doing almost same things :P. Well, but, thats it, and thank you so much!! I got rid of AcceptEx call, and, implemented accept event (like you do) and now it works!! Finally!
I got rid of AcceptEx call, and, implemented accept event (like you do) and now it works!
It was so long ago I forget why I don't use AcceptEx()...but I'm sure I couldn't get something to work the way I needed to
I do really like I/O completion ports. Not just for I/O... For native C++ apps they make a nice built-in thread pool for queuing operations on worker threads. Very efficient and Microsoft did most of the work
I am working with IOCP just for a 3 days now (current project requirement) and starting to love it. Completion ports are a way better then creating tons of threads for connections and tons of events as well - you got everything in one place, its like, kind of message loop, isnt it? having one struct, jumping from reading to writing and queuing stuff, defying operations, and performance for sure. Totally agree - IOCP is outstanding option - one port to rule them all Ok, back to coding
There are articles and even classes to tell how to dynamically move controls on forms.
I thought it should be a simple task to dynamically expand (MoveWindow) a control to fill available space under different user options, however, I cannot figure out how to dynamically determine the actual location of the new destination / size.
I have added an anchor button to get the location but I do not know how to dynamically get the location of this button.
I tried GetWindowRect , but that gives me location relative to the current window. GetClientRect gives me the actual size of the anchor button and that is no help either.
The “anchor button” is off the screen when the user selects the option and I use scroll to (up) bring it into view. Is is possible this is my problem and I need to recalculate the position after the scroll?
Still using VC6.0 and MFC, the app works for me, and no, updating to anything is not an option. Do not waste your and my time suggesting it.
Any constructive help will be as always appreciated.
Using GetClientRect() on your main window will tell you how much space is available, so you can resize your control to those dimensions to get it to fill the space. Also, I'm not sure how to do it in MFC, but in Win32 the structure filled by the BeginPaint() call will also give you the dimensions of the visible part of your window; maybe part of the CDC class will help.
I am using visual studio 2008 MFC feature pack. My application has a "quick access toolbar" which is included in the MFC feature pack (it can be found at the top left of the main window. right next to the main menu).
My application is localized to several languages. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to translate the quick access toolbar and it's sub enries ("More Commands...", "Show Below the Ribbon" and "Minimize the Ribbon").
Does anyone know how to translate the quick access toolbar?
My problem is When I click the first Dialog, Focus doesn't switch to the first Dialog.
I've to minimize the new Dialog, if I want to see the first Dialog. How to set Focus
to a Dialog while it is clicked or pressed ALT+TAB?
1/ Unless you *really* know what you're doing it's a bad idea to create UI objects from multiple threads. It's like juggling with loaded guns whilst drunk. Sure, it may seem like a good idea at the time, but someone's gonna lose a toe.
2/ TerminateThread is also a really bad idea. I don't think I have *ever* used it. I've used plenty of Events, and BOOL's, and WaitForSingleMessage (hSomeThread, dwA_short_time)'s, but never TerminateThread.
That way memory leaks and crashes lie.
3/ To answer your actual question...
Ptr->SetFocus () ?
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
1/ Unless you *really* know what you're
doing it's a bad idea to create UI objects from multiple threads. It's like
juggling with loaded guns whilst drunk. Sure, it may seem like a good idea at
the time, but someone's gonna lose a toe.
2/ TerminateThread is
also a really bad idea. I don't think I have *ever* used it. I've used plenty of
Events, and BOOL's, and WaitForSingleMessage (hSomeThread, dwA_short_time)'s,
but never TerminateThread. That way memory leaks and crashes
3/ To answer your actual question... Ptr->SetFocus ()
You showed two pieces of code. Only one has "Ptr" in it. Look up SetFocus on msdn for more information on that member function. The name is a bit of a give away though.
The second piece of code you showed implied you have threads creating dialogs. My points about threads and TerminateThread applied to all windows programs, not just the bits you shows.
Just in case I misunderstood your question, when I used "Event" above, I meant Win32's event synchronisation objects, created by
CreateEvent win32 function.
If you've not heard of them (and mutexes [*], and semaphores) then you really should not be creating windows outside the main thread. I may sound harsh, but I simply mean you should not be using them *yet*. Do some reading, play with some programs, understand the ideas, then go wild.