|
how to stop the timer after 12 45. how can i check each item at specific time...can u pls show me in code
|
|
|
|
|
Member 11074115 wrote: how to stop the timer after 12 45
Easy - set the initial timer to tomorrow 12 AM.
That way the whole sequence starts again the next day (assuming the program is still running)
Member 11074115 wrote: how can i check each item at specific time...can u pls show me in code
Oh, come on! 
You know how to add 15 minutes to a DateTime - or you should.
You know how to fetch the current date and time.
And you know how to compare two DateTime values.
So what part of this is complicated?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
i have already written code to trigger @12, but in TimerAction i am not able to get the timer time. How to fetch that value so i can check for each item.
Here am setting timer
private void SetTimerValue()
{
//// trigger the event at 12 AM.
DateTime requiredTime = DateTime.Today.AddHours(0).AddMinutes(00);
if (DateTime.Now > requiredTime)
{
requiredTime = requiredTime.AddDays(1);
}
TimeSpan periodTS = requiredTime - DateTime.Now;
myTimer = new System.Threading.Timer(new TimerCallback(TimerAction), null, 0, (long)periodTS.TotalMilliseconds);
}
But in TimerAction i shud loop items and set interval....i dono how to do that..wer shud i set interval
ublic void TimerAction(object e)
{
var collection = new List<string> { "item1", "item2", "item3", "item4" };
// When timer is 12am, execute item1
// When timer is 12 15am, execute item2
// When timer is 12 30am, execute item3
// When timer is 12 45am, execute item4
}
|
|
|
|
|
Don't.
Do this:
private enum Action
{
Disabled, Item1, Item2, Item3, Item4
}
private DateTime doAfter = DateTime.MaxValue;
private Action action = Action.Disabled;
This gives you the framework you need.
Then, set up and start the timer:
private void SetTimer()
{
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.Interval = 1000 * 60 * 5;
timer.Tick += new EventHandler(timer_Tick);
timer.Start();
action = Action.Item1;
doAfter = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(1);
}And then handle the Tick:
private void timer_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (DateTime.Now >= doAfter)
{
switch (action)
{
case Action.Item1:
action = Action.Item2;
doAfter = doAfter.AddMinutes(15);
break;
...
case Action.Item4:
action = Action.Item1;
doAfter = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(1);
break;
}
}
}
And it handles it all for you.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
i have written below code, but it never triggers OnTimedEvent event. i should debug and test the code inside OnTimedEvent. How should i do this
private void SetTimer(TimeSpan interval)
{
timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
timer.Interval = 1000 * 60 * 5; // 5 minutes
timer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(OnTimedEvent);
timer.Start();
}
private void OnTimedEvent(object source, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
// want to debug and test the code written here.
}
|
|
|
|
|
How can I implement this so it works properly?
Main thread creates an instance of Foo(). Foo() has a method Go(). I want Go() to be fire-and-forget, but I want ALL Go()'s to run before the process is allowed to exit, but I want that all encapsulated in Foo(). So...
I want:
main()
{
Foo f = new Foo();
for (int i = 0; i <= 200; i++)
f.Go();
}
That's all that the caller should do. No waits, no sleeps, no usings, nothing. Assuming thats possible.
so I tried using a queue where Go() adds an item to the queue and the Foo constructor spawns a thread that monitors the queue.
So it does work, but the worker thread is dying before it's done.
I tried putting a .Wait() on the task in ~Foo(), but the process still exits.
Also tried old school Thread, but then it never even seems to hit the ~Foo(). The main thread is now waiting on the worker thread to finish, but the worker thread is supposed to run for the life of Foo(), I would have expected main() to determine and try to kill Foo() and have it block in the finalizer???
modified 10-Sep-14 16:34pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I want the app to NOT exit after spawning off threads...
1) main thread creates instance of Foo()
2) for (1..1000) Foo.Go() should be a fire and forget unit of work
3) main thread "exits", but only unit of work 1..30 were processed because the main thread exited too fast
What I want instead is:
1) main thread creates instance of Foo()
2) for (1..1000) Foo.Go() should be a fire and forget unit of work
3) main thread "exits", BUT "PROCESS HANGS" until all 1000 units of work are completed
I know I can do this with a .Join in the main thread, but as I said in my original post is that Foo() is its own man. If it wants to "block the process from exiting" until all the work is completed, it should do so without the main threads assistance.
Seems like when *Tasks* are running, they don't block the process from exiting
Seems like when a *Thread* object is running, it blocks the process from exiting
I kind of got something working, but I'm not super happy with it.
I kick off a Thread so the process is blocked from exiting... the background thread does a BlockingCollection.Take with a cancellation token. If the cancellation token is set, it exits the background thread.
Meanwhile, I also kick off a main thread watch dog task that checks if the main thread has exited and if it does, AND the queue is empty it sets the cancellation token so the background thread can exit.
It does have the behavior I want, but I'm not really liking this part:
Thread threadCurrent = Thread.CurrentThread;
Task.Run(() =>
{
if (System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsAttached)
threadCurrent.Join();
Console.WriteLine("EXITED");
while (_queueLogEntries.Count > 0)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
Console.WriteLine("EXITED2");
_cts.Cancel();
});
|
|
|
|
|
You should be able to use Join in Go.
1) main thread creates instance of Foo()
2) for (1..1000) Foo.Go() should be a fire and forget unit of work
2.1) Go uses Join to wait until all threads are complete, then exits
3) main thread "exits" , BUT "PROCESS HANGS" until all 1000 units of work are completed
You can't have the main thread exit and "hang" at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
i want make simple web browser by c# application.the browser i want to set fit to screen as in the image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanx Eddy for link..but i want to make browser with zoom out and zoom in facility....can you give me some idea with demo how can i do it...
|
|
|
|
|
Press Ctrl-+, should be supported by the COM-control.
If not, inject a zoom-tag in the body's style-tag.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
can u show me demo...tnx for tht
|
|
|
|
|
No.
Someone else might 
|
|
|
|
|
ok thnx for giving ur pricious time....
|
|
|
|
|
I'am trouble to implement encryption testing without times in millisecond and how i adding to the code??
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Data;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Text;
using System.Windows.Forms;
using System.Security.Cryptography;
namespace RSAEncryption
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
#region-----Encryptionand Decryption Function-----
static public byte[] Encryption(byte[] Data, RSAParameters RSAKey, bool DoOAEPPadding)
{
try
{
byte[] encryptedData;
using (RSACryptoServiceProvider RSA = new RSACryptoServiceProvider())
{
RSA.ImportParameters(RSAKey);
encryptedData = RSA.Encrypt(Data, DoOAEPPadding);
}
return encryptedData;
}
catch (CryptographicException e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
return null;
}
}
static public byte[] Decryption(byte[] Data, RSAParameters RSAKey, bool DoOAEPPadding)
{
try
{
byte[] decryptedData;
using (RSACryptoServiceProvider RSA = new RSACryptoServiceProvider())
{
RSA.ImportParameters(RSAKey);
decryptedData = RSA.Decrypt(Data, DoOAEPPadding);
}
return decryptedData;
}
catch (CryptographicException e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.ToString());
return null;
}
}
#endregion
#region--variables area
UnicodeEncoding ByteConverter = new UnicodeEncoding();
RSACryptoServiceProvider RSA = new RSACryptoServiceProvider();
byte[] plaintext;
byte[] encryptedtext;
#endregion
#region-- Function Implemantation
private void Encrypt_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
plaintext = ByteConverter.GetBytes(txtplain.Text);
encryptedtext = Encryption(plaintext, RSA.ExportParameters(false), false);
txtencrypt.Text = ByteConverter.GetString(encryptedtext);
}
private void Decrypt_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
byte[] decryptedtex = Decryption(encryptedtext, RSA.ExportParameters(true), false);
txtdecrypt.Text = ByteConverter.GetString(decryptedtex);
}
#endregion
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, adding one textbox and while to running to the textbox in the timers range 0-2000 millisecond
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, adding one textbox and while to running to the textbox in the timers range 0-2000 millisecond 
modified 11-Sep-14 7:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
I have an object[]. I need to convert it to IEnumerable T **FAST**.
Right now I have (this part is called ONCE and EnumFactory is cache):
MethodInfo mi = typeof(Enumerable).GetMethod("CastIterator", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Static).MakeGenericMethod(from);
ParameterExpression[] param = new ParameterExpression[] { Expression.Parameter(typeof(object[])) };
EnumFactory = Expression.Lambda<Func<object[], object>>(Expression.Call(mi, param), param).Compile();
Then I call it as (this part is called millions of times):
return EnumFactory(oArray);
Most of the examples you'll see call typeof(Enumerable).GetMethod("Cast"), but if you look at that in reflector, you'll see it does a few useless checks and then calls CastIterator. To save time on the useless checks and the extra method call, I call CastIterator directly.
Any other options? EnumFactory is, of course, cached. If I comment out the part that fills in oArray, its negligible compared to calling EnumFactory. I do not know T at compile time.
|
|
|
|
|
How slow is a simple for-loop ?
private static T[]
CastArray<T>
(
object[] Value
)
{
T[] result = new T [ Value.Length ] ;
for ( int i = 0 ; i < result.Length ; i++ ) result [ i ] = (T) Value [ i ] ;
return ( result ) ;
}
It works with ints, does it work with what you have? This should be your baseline. How much faster is your technique?
I suppose the bigger question is why you have an object array in the first place. 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know T until runtime, so I would have to do the same thing of making a generic method and calling it through a delegate / invoke / expression tree.
However, the above code you suggested will actually be "much" slower then Cast / CastIterator since you are new'ing up the T array every time. CastIterator is simply:
private static IEnumerable<TResult> CastIterator<TResult>(IEnumerable source)
{
foreach (object current in source)
{
yield return (TResult)((object)current);
}
yield break;
}
Unless of course, the yield keyword is expensive... but from my understanding of how it works internally, it should be MUCH, MUCH faster then the method above since its lazy (and it doesn't new up anything).
I know I'm nitpicking lol, but really trying to squeeze everything out of this block of code.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know the type until runtime, why not make it IEnumerable<dynamic>. When you run this, it will appear that you have an IEnumerable of objects (as you have now), but with the proviso that because it's dynamic, it will honour any method calls you care to make on that object. I haven't tested the performance of this, but that might be worth a try for you.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
