|
I'm not even sure how to ask the question, hah. I want two classes:
User:
public class User
{
private List<Group> groups = new List<Group>();
public List<Group> Groups
{
get { return groups; }
}
}
and Group:
public class Group
{
private List<User> users = new List<User>();
public List<User> Users
{
get { return users; }
}
}
Say I have a Group "All Users". When I initialize a User I assume I'm going to get an out-of-memory error.
Not that anyone would want to do this, but you should be able to do this:
User u = new User();
u.Groups["All Users"].Users[u.Username].Groups["All Users"].Users[u.Username] ;
If anyone could help I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
Make your groups collection in User class a singleton. It should be instantiated and populated just once.
|
|
|
|
|
you could solve that by postponing the creation of a list till you need it, like so:
public class Group
{
private List users;
public List Users
{
get {
if (users==null) users=new List();
return users;
}
}
}
and optionally similar for user.
That way, you only get the list when you actually use it.
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty good. 5.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Took me a minute to understand but I get it.
Thanks very much!
[EDIT] and a few minutes later it seems all too obvious and I get mad for not thinking of it.
|
|
|
|
|
While it is technically correct, it does prevent the infinite recursion, this is still not the right way to handle things.
1.
If you have a many-to-many relation like that, you should keep it outside both classes, i.e. the User class shouldn't automatically create or touch groups, and the Group class shouldn't create or touch users. You could give them a second constructor where a Group (or a User) is a parameter, basically saying "give me a new User and add him to this Group" for comfort, note this makes it all explicit.
2.
If you want a single list that contains all objects of some class, the best way to do it is with a static list burried inside the class; then you should add them automatically.
class User {
private static List<User> users=new List<User>();
public User() {
users.Add(this);
}
}
You may then add a property that gets a read-only copy of the list of users, so your app can look at it.
Warning: the list will grow; it will also remember User objects that no longer exist in your app, however by adding them to the list, they will never get collected. So you may want to use WeakReference instead; and maybe use a finalizer. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, a class shouldn't know anything about how, where, or whether it is stored anywhere -- that is not within its area of responsibility. Basically, a User may have a collection of Groups and a Group may have a collection of Users, but neither should be in charge of "getting" those collections. Some other class is responsible for knowing about the database and the relationship and reading and populating the collections.
Here's a little something I just worked up to show how I might do it -- though I probably wouldn't  :
public sealed class UserGroupManager
{
public UserGroupManager
(
Test DataContext
)
{
this.Users = new System.Collections.Generic.HashSet<Test.User>() ;
this.Groups = new System.Collections.Generic.HashSet<Test.Group>() ;
foreach
(
Test.User user
in
DataContext.Users
)
{
foreach
(
Test.Group group
in
DataContext.ExecuteQuery<Test.Group>
(
@"SELECT [Group].* FROM UserGroup INNER JOIN [Group] ON UserGroup.GroupID=[Group].ID WHERE UserGroup.UserID=?"
,
user.ID
)
)
{
group.Users.Add ( user ) ;
user.Groups.Add ( group ) ;
this.Groups.Add ( group ) ;
}
this.Users.Add ( user ) ;
}
return ;
}
public readonly System.Collections.Generic.HashSet<Test.User> Users ;
public readonly System.Collections.Generic.HashSet<Test.Group> Groups ;
}
(I've only been fiddling with Linq-to-SQL  for the last few days.)
|
|
|
|
|
From here http://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/smartthreadpool.aspx#Feature1[^]
"It is also stated that the operations in the .NET ThreadPool should be quick to avoid suspension of the work of others who use the .NET ThreadPool. Note that several AppDomains in the same process share the same .NET ThreadPool. If you want a thread to work for a long period of time, then the .NET ThreadPool is not a good choice for you (unless you know what you are doing)."
My question is, why. Why dotnet ThreadPool is only for quick executions? This makes it kind of useless as if jobs are quick to execute you wouldn't really need to have it placed on a thread in the first place.
Also, what really are the negative consequences for putting long running jobs on dotnet ThreadPool's threads?
Thanks
dev
|
|
|
|
|
devvvy wrote: This makes it kind of useless as if jobs are quick to execute you wouldn't really need to have it placed on a thread in the first place.
Not really, you'd still save the time of creating a thread. Take below statement as an example;
this.Invoke(()=> this.Visible = false; ); Not a very nice example, I agree. The example-project that comes with the Msnp-sharp protocol uses this construction extensively, and it makes a nice reactive UI.
Quick is relative here, I'm using it for everything that takes more than half a second, and less than 3 seconds.
devvvy wrote: Also, what really are the negative consequences for putting long running jobs on dotnet ThreadPool's threads?
Running out of threads. Means that the next request will be blocked until there's a worker available.
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
Good answer, deserves a 5.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
devvvy wrote: My question is, why. Why dotnet ThreadPool is only for quick executions? This makes it kind of useless as if jobs are quick to execute you wouldn't really need to have it placed on a thread in the first place.
This seems counter-intuitive, I had to check what the article writer said for out myself. I hadn't heard this statement before but the answer (at least the one found) makes sense, to the point of being obvious. The ThreadPool has a limited number of threads available, which can recycle once a thread's process has finished. If your process is long-lived, the pool can more easily run out of threads to recycle, reducing performance.
So that leaves the question "Why bother with a ThreadPool at all?", the answer is that creating a Thread is an expensive process: if the process you are running is sort-lived compared to the creation of a new thread (and this is where the "short-lived" comes from) then creating a new thread is a bad choice. The correct choice (assuming you have no other requirements) in this case is to use a ThreadPool, the threads are recycled, reducing the overhead.
Sources:
http://htmlcoderhelper.com/when-to-use-thread-pool-in-c/[^]
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pedram/archive/2007/08/05/dedicated-thread-or-a-threadpool-thread.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0[^]
Good question, and I've (in the best tradition of South Park) Learned something here today!
|
|
|
|
|
"So that leaves the question "Why bother with a ThreadPool at all?", the answer is that creating a Thread is an expensive process: if the process you are running is sort-lived compared to the creation of a new thread (and this is where the "short-lived" comes from) then creating a new thread is a bad choice. The correct choice (assuming you have no other requirements) in this case is to use a ThreadPool, the threads are recycled, reducing the overhead. "
Yes exactly, if it's short lived, I wouldn't even bother put on a thread. Or have say five to ten short lived operations all put on one Worker thread while UI thread sits around to entertain the users.
But I don't see why the notion of dotnet ThreadPool not meant for long running jobs
If ThreadPool is only for short small jabs, then - yes, creating separate Threads is expensive but you could have just created ONE thread for all/number of short jabs instead of multiple threads or using a ThreadPool at all. Precisely this makes dotnet ThreadPool quite useless if really it's not meant for long running jobs (especially if simple job cancels is not supported)
dev
|
|
|
|
|
"Long lived" is relative (and fuzzy!), and the dev needs to achieve a balance.
Here, you would need to balance off the number of threads created in the pool against their lifespan. At some point the process will be long-lived enough that the threadpool will run out of threads. But you are likely to notice performance problems before you get to this stage (especially in a UI). This problem is allieviated (as Pete's post described) by the fact that we can spin off a fairly large number of threads per pool. Luc's point is also a good one: if you have a few long-lived processes (or I suppose if you spin off new long-lived processes at a slow rate) then the thread pool is an option: the processes won't occupy enough threads to block the addition of all of them. The threadpool might be slightly less efficient than coding the threading yourself in this case, but the loss is small enough not to be a problem in most applications, but you get the benefit of *much* neater code.
In my experience, a suck it and see approach is best for this sort of stuff, if you are still confused, you could try writing a test rig to compare the relative performance of a ThreadPool with processes of differing lengths and addition rates, against managing your own threads.
[Edit 2]
I suggest you read Luc's response, and Pete's too. This doesn't seem to be that much of a problem any more. To be honest, I haven't found any issues with it in the past - but by the time I only really had to use ThreadPools in earnest we were on version 3.0 of the framework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use the SmartThreadPool object. I wrote an article that uses it to demonstrate thread pool usage, delegates, and events:
Multithreading, Delegates, and Custom Events[^]
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind a limited number of long-running threads from the ThreadPool. Here is why:
AFAIK the maximum number of threads in the ThreadPool is set right when your app starts, and you have no run-time say in it, as it gets fixed long before your own code starts executing. However a simple experiment with GetMaxThreads() shows the number would currently be 500. (And IIRC there is a way to modify that number at build time). I also read it was raised to 4K on .NET 4.0
The ThreadPool does not create that number of threads right away, it will create them when needed, at a rate of 2 per second (another experiment); i.e. every second (or half second?) it will check whether there are more work items than idle pool threads, and if so, grow the pool by two (or one?). Also, all threads are expensive: creating them takes cycles, and they use a lot of resources, including a 1MB stack each.
If you keep work items short and non-blocking, you'll be able to handle lots of them using just a few threads; that is why one often recommends it: short AND non-blocking.
However the ThreadPool does not care what you do with those threads; the framework as a whole uses some threads as almost all asynchronous events run on them (SerialPort.DataReceived, Timer.Tick, etc). IMO the only thing that matters is not having it run out of threads, so if you want 10 or 50 threads that run for one month, go ahead. If you want hundreds, think again.
Caveat: if your pool threads don't need high-priority, they could still hog the pool, and cause delays in the processing of the asynchronous handler threads; it may be wise to get those handlers operational before loading the pool with low-priority stuff; I do have the impression that some handlers get a dedicated thread from the pool, SerialPort.DataReceived looks like such one. The rationale would be the serial port cannot stall suddenly for 500 msec just because the current population of the pool happens to be fully busy.
Warning: the ThreadPool has strongly evolved in each new .NET release since .NET 1.0; initially it was dumber and much more limited. As a result lot of information about it on the Internet is outdated and confusing.
Some references:
injection and retirement algorithm: http://aviadezra.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html[^]
async handlers: http://www.perceler.com/articles1.php?art=asyncpool1[^]
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code. modified on Friday, December 3, 2010 11:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
These have all been excellent answers, but one thing that nobody has mentioned is that the initial versions of .NET (1 and 1.1) had an upper limit of 25 threads per process in a single Threadpool. Smart Thread Pool was originally written to work with .NET 1 (and I used it then to overcome the deficiencies).
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
1. loaded the jpg to picture box (in Size mode as Zoomed).
2. I drawn a rectangle on the picture box and taken the coordinate.
3. opens the jpg in paint and observed the coordinate (where i drawn rectangle on the picture box). when i compare the rectangle coordinate(x and y) with paint coordinate it not the same.
I changed the Size mode to normal and observed that the coordinates are same but the Image size is too large so it display partially. so use zoom size mode property.
Say image with size 2825x3538 and keep the picture box size mode as Normal, the image shows partially in picture box. So i changed picture box mode to zoom (to fit the System screen resolution). and coordinate miss matched when compare it with Normal mode with zoom mode.
How can i achieve the same coordinates.
|
|
|
|
|
That is one of the problems with PictureBox, as soon as you use its features, it becomes hard to add functionality such as getting mouse locations coordinated with image pixels. In such cases I don't use the PB at all, I just use a Panel and paint the content myself (OnPaint handler), so I know exactly what I am doing and what is getting shown where.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
In my project I use a ticker to display feeds which get displayed in a scrolling way.
In this we are converting the string to be displayed in BitmapImage and adding it up to the ticker by drawing in it..
Attached is the needed code with the message.:
What i need is the image which we are displaying on clicking on it will open up the URL (which is actually the string now converted to image). i.e. on clicking that scrolling tick will open the displayed URL.
To create bitmap image of the string
private Image CreateBitMapImage(string upText, string downText, int trend)
{
Image trendImage;
ImageAttributes iaTrend;
if (trend > 0 && _ticker.UpTrendImage != null)
{
trendImage = (Image)_ticker.UpTrendImage.Clone();
iaTrend = _ticker.IaUpTrend;
}
else if (trend == 0 && _ticker.NoTrendImage != null)
{
trendImage = (Image)_ticker.NoTrendImage.Clone();
iaTrend = _ticker.IaNoTrend;
}
else
{
trendImage = (Image)_ticker.DownTrendImage.Clone();
iaTrend = _ticker.IaDownTrend;
}
Bitmap b = new Bitmap(1, 1);
Font f = _ticker.Font;
Graphics graphics;
SolidBrush textBrush = new SolidBrush(_ticker.ForeColor);
graphics = Graphics.FromImage(b);
try
{
int width = (int)graphics.MeasureString(upText + downText, f).Width +
_ticker.UpTrendImage.Width;
Rectangle _rect =
new Rectangle((int)graphics.MeasureString(upText + downText, f).Width, 0,
trendImage.Width, _ticker.Height);
b = new Bitmap(b, new Size(width, _ticker.Height));
graphics = Graphics.FromImage(b);
graphics.DrawString(upText, f, textBrush, 0, 0);
graphics.DrawString(downText, f, textBrush,
(int)graphics.MeasureString(upText, f).Width, _ticker.DownTrendRectY);
graphics.DrawImage(trendImage, _rect, 0, 0, trendImage.Width, trendImage.Height,
GraphicsUnit.Pixel, iaTrend);
return b;
}
catch (Exception _ex)
{
throw _ex;
}
finally
{
graphics.Dispose();
textBrush.Dispose();
}
}
to add the item to the ticker panel
public void AddTickerItem(Image img)
{
lock (_tickerItemLock)
{
if (Visible)
{
TickerImageItem _tickImage = new TickerImageItem();
_tickImage.ImageTick = img;
_tickImage.rectF.Y = Padding.Top;
_tickImage.rectF.Height = Height;
_tickImage.rectF.Width = _tickImage.ImageTick.Width;
if (items.Count <= 0)
{
if (startingPositionHasBeenSetAfterHeight == false)
{
_tickImage.rectF.X = Width - 1;
startingPositionHasBeenSetAfterHeight = true;
}
}
else
{
_tickImage.rectF.X = items[items.Count - 1].rectF.X + items[items.Count - 1].rectF.Width;
}
items.Add(_tickImage);
}
}
}
To Draw the Image:
private void Draw(bool bFullImage, Graphics graphicsObj)
{
lock (this)
{
if (graphicsObj != null)
{
RectangleF clipRectF = ClientRectangle;
graphicsObj.Clear(BackColor);
if (bFullImage)
{
if (items.Count > 0 && items[0].rectF.X + items[0].rectF.Width <= 0)
{
lock (_tickerItemLock)
{
items.Remove(items[0]);
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < items.Count; i++)
{
TickerImageItem item = items[i];
if (clipRectF.IntersectsWith(item.rectF))
{
item.rectF.X -= XCoordinateDifference;
graphicsObj.DrawImageUnscaled(item.ImageTick, Rectangle.Ceiling(item.rectF));
}
else
item.rectF.X -= XCoordinateDifference;
}
if (ManagedBackBuffer!=null &&
ManagedBackBuffer.Graphics != null &&
GraphicManager!= null)
ManagedBackBuffer.Render();
}
else if (!bFullImage)
{
graphicsObj.Clear(BackColor);
for (int i = 0; i < items.Count; i++)
{
TickerImageItem item = items[i];
if (item.rectF.X + item.rectF.Width <= 0)
items.Remove(item);
else if (clipRectF.IntersectsWith(item.rectF))
graphicsObj.DrawImageUnscaled(item.ImageTick, Rectangle.Ceiling(item.rectF));
else
break;
}
}
ControlPaint.DrawBorder(graphicsObj, ClientRectangle, BackColor,
ButtonBorderStyle.Solid);
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Just an idea... but when you are adding the Image to the Ticker, why don't you pass along the URL that is associated with the Image and set the "Tag" attribute to the URL. That way when the Image is clicked you can get the URL from that.
|
|
|
|
|
Hai All...
How to use a ListView Control in C#.net Smartdevices for mobile apps
have a sample code is better...
am using this
listview1.items.add("xxx"); like listbox..
is not working...
what is the method to use...
Best Regard's
Mathy's
|
|
|
|
|
You could've surfed CP for existed question.
BTW, It's HERE[^] only.
Regards,
Hiren.
"The more we give of anything, the more we shall get back." - Grace Speare
(you can consider this quote while giving vote also)
Microsoft Dynamics CRM
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
