Currently, I'm using the powerful SetWinEventHook() function to catch some user-interface's actions like minimizing and maximizing from other window runned by programs on the computer.
So I inspired myself by using the code provided by BrendanMcK on this post and it does work (I mean: the callback function is called when an event occurs) until the line
MessageBox.Show("Something")
is present. But I don't want to use any form or window for this program..
After some research, I figured out this kind of hook needs a message loop to allow the redirection of messages from other window handles. Apparently, calling the thread using Application.Run() should do the trick, but I would prefer something cleaner, in the C# object itself.
So my question is: is it possible to create a message loop inside an object's method?
http://bytes.com/topic/c-sharp/answers/557342-thread-message-loop-c
No, the function doesn't require a window handle so no "form" is needed. But the MSDN docs for the function is quite explicit:
The client thread that calls SetWinEventHook must have a message loop in order to receive events.
A message loop is universal in any program that want to receive notifications that are generated externally by other processes or threads. It is the common solution to the producer-consumer problem. Clearly any GUI app has a need for such a solution, Windows messages are generated by the operating system. It isn't different for SetWinEventHook(), the accessibility events originate in other programs. There is no clean mechanism to "interrupt" a thread and make it run other code, the re-entrancy problems that causes are extremely difficult to deal with. The thread has to co-operate, it must be idle and ready to receive a notification to safely process it. A message loop solves that problem.
Pumping a message loop (calling Application.Run) in a method is certainly possible. But do keep in mind that the method won't return until you explicitly stop the loop with Application.ExitThread. There is therefore usually only one good place for that call, the Main() method of your program.
Starting your project with a Winforms or WPF project template is a very good way to get this right. You have no need to actually create a window, call Application.Run() without an argument, after pinvoking SetWinEventHook.
Related
I could not find my answer in this thread:
Using the GWT Scheduler
The GWT Scheduler class has scheduleDeferred API which executes after the browser event loop returns. The scheduleFinally API allows me to execute code before the control returns to the browser event loop.
How do I decide whether I should use scheduleDeferred or scheduleFinally? Is there a code example which shows the difference in behavior?
To understand this, you need to first get the basic idea of an event loop. When you write code to run in the browser, you don't write this loop - it lives in the browser, waiting for the user to do something. When that something happens (mouse event, keyboard event, AJAX call returns, setTimeout goes off), the loop calls into your code, and lets you handle it however you would like to.
So first, we have scheduleDeferred, which is a way to notify the browser that we have some code to run soon, but not in this loop. This is a handy way to let the browser regain control, render some content, and then give you control again. This can be helpful to break up calculations into several chunks to avoid any "long running script" errors, or can be an early attempt at animation (Note: use the actual requestAnimationFrame api from the browser, or AnimationScheduler.get().requestAnimationFrame in GWT instead for this).
Next, there are two interesting places in the loop where you might have code that you would like to run - either right as the browser transfers control to you, or right before you return control back again. Of these two, the end is usually more interesting: scheduleFinally. This lets you run some code inside the current event loop, but not until the very end of it. CssResource uses this strategy in its ensureInjected() method - when you run several different calls to this method, rather than poking the DOM several times, it batches them all up and runs them at the end of the event loop, using scheduleFinally.
The last one, the beginning of each event loop is managed by another method - scheduleEntry. In theory, this could be used in conjunction with finally to reimplement a simple version of AngularJS's binding wiring.
//event comes in to GWT from the $entry method, and follows these steps
try {
// 1. run registered scheduleEntry calls
// 2. run the current event or callback that the browser called us for
} finally {
// 3. run registered scheduleFinally calls
}
Any call to scheduleDeferred during those steps has added a call to the next event loop, to run as part of #2.
I want to use elements of CQRS pattern in my project. I wonder if i do it right with Command and Events.
The thing that I'm not sure is if event can invoke command. To better show what i want to do I will use diagram and example.
This is an example:
User invoke TripCreateCommand. TripCreateCommandHandler do his job and after success publish TripCreatedEvent.
Now we have two listener to TripCreatedEvent (the order of listener execution does not matter)
First listener (can be execute after the second listener):
for each user in trip.author.friends invoke two Command (the order of commands is important)
PublishTripOnUserWallCommand
SendNewTripEmailNotificationCommand
SendNewTripPlatformNotification
Second listener (can be execute before the first listener):
PublishTripOnUserSocials
And this is sample diagram:
Is this a good way ? Can EventListener invoke Command, or maybe I should do it in some other way ?
Your question is about Mesage Driven Architecture which works together with but otherwise unrelated to CQRS.
Anyway, your diagram is almost correct. The event subscriber/handler (I prefer this terminology) can send new Commands via the service bus, but it's not a rule that you should always do this. I implement quite a lot of functionality directly in the event handler, although probalby would be more clean and reliable to send a new command. It really depends on what I want to do.
Note that the message handlers (commands or events) should not know about other handlers. They should know about the bus and the bus takes care of handling. This means that in your app, the event handlers would take the bus as dependency, create the command and send it via the bus. The event handler itself doesn't know what command handler generated the event and can 'reply' to it.
Usually the commands would be handled independently and you can't guarantee the order (unless they're handled synchronously) so maybe you want the second command to be issued as a result of the first command's handling. Indeed, it can be the case for a Saga.
AFAIK you are talking only about doing things synchronously, so your approach works in this case but it's probably not scalable. Moving to async handling will break this execution flow. However your application can be fine with it, not everyhting needs to be twitter.
A message driven architecture is not that straightforward and for some cases (like you want an immediate response from the backend) it's quite complicated to implement, at least more complicated than with the 'standard' approach. So maybe for those particular cases you might want to do it the 'old' way.
If you're worried about decoupling and testing, you can still design the services as they were message handlers but use them directly, instead of a service bus.
Not sure why you would need Commands for performing the updating the information on the user's wall. Why would you choose not to use a View Model Updater for that task.
Sending an email can be considered a Command but could also easily be viewed as just another View Model update.
Not clear on what the purpose of the SendNewTripPlatformNotification is, so I cannot give any suggestions there...
Some of this could also be a candidate for a Saga. Secondly I'm missing your Domain in the diagram, that is what should be responsible for publishing any events, or do you consider the CommandHandler to be the Domain?
First of all, I am a a very new Objective C/Cocoa iOS Developer but I've written C/C++ applications before.
So I managed to run the Rabbitmq-c (http://hg.rabbitmq.com/rabbitmq-c/) client inside my iPhone App, and I can connect to Rabbitmq directly from my app and even consume a queue item. So all's good.
Now my problem is, my iPhone app needs to use the rabbitmq-c library to poll for incoming messages in from the server. Probably there will be, an almost infinite while loop.
Do I have to take this to a new thread? Ideally, I want to wrap the rabbitmq-c class as an Async objective C class and use NSNotification (or something similar) to notify my UI. I'm a bit leery of creating a new thread, as I read about stuffs like Runloop etc can solve a lot of problems without using an extra thread.
What is the best way for me to go about this? Any examples of code or directions would be helpful. Please remember, I am not dealing with an Objective C code/Coca rabbitmq library here, I'm using C code inside my iPhone app.
Thanks
Subrat
don't block the main thread with your server polling.
since the operation never ends, create your own thread and run loop for this server polling. you can potentially use the run loop (each thread has one) instead of the infinite while. the alternatives involve regularly spawning threads. it's easiest to just use one thread for this.
once you have an update, post the notification (if you choose NSNotification) from the main thread -- UIKit is meant to operate from the main thread only.
for samples, i'd begin with samples related to NSRunLoop and CFRunLoop.
good luck
You can also create custom delegates for updating the UI, or the stuff related to UIKit.
Notifications might be a little easier to code and offer the advantage that multiple objects can observe one notification. With delegates, such a thing cannot be done without modifying the delegating object (and is unusual).
Some advantages of delegating:
The connection between delegating object and delegate is made clearer, especially if implementing the delegate is mandatory.
If more than one type of message has to be passed from delegatee to delegate, delegating can make this clearer by specifying one delegate method per message.
Or other way is to write method to receive messages. This method can have infinite loop.
Later you can put this method in background thread like this.
[self performSelectorInBackground:#selector(receiveMessages) withObject:nil];
In iPhone development, I have come across these terms named
event loop, run loop
. Can some one explain explain what they are?
Like many other GUI systems, the code you write for an iPhone application runs into a loop that is provided by the system.
When writing a program without a GUI it is customary to have a main() function or similar. On iPhone you don't have that because it's provided by the system, and it will call the event loop. All you provide is callbacks to react to events.
The loop takes care of getting hardware events as touches and such, calling your code and API code to draw the windows, some memory management and all. This is why you never have to poll for these events yourself.
I think this apple documentation will explains a little more:
An event loop is simply a run loop: an event-processing loop for scheduling work and coordinating the receipt of events from various input sources attached to the run loop. Every thread has access to a run loop. In all but the main thread, the run loop must be configured and run manually by your code. In Cocoa applications, the run loop for the main thread—the main event loop—is run automatically by the application object. What distinguishes the main event loop is that its primary input source receives events from the operating system that are generated by user actions—for example, tapping a view or entering text using a keyboard.
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/Devpedia-CocoaApp/MainEventLoop.html
What is the necessity of using Application.DoEvents and when we should use it?
Application.DoEvents is usually used to make sure that events get handled periodicaly when you're performing some long-running operation on the UI thread.
A better solution is just not to do that. Perform long-running operations on separate threads, marshalling to the UI thread (either using Control.BeginInvoke/Invoke or with BackgroundWorker) when you need to update the UI.
Application.DoEvents introduces the possibility of re-entrancy, which can lead to very hard-to-understand bugs.
Windows maintains a queue to hold various events like click, resize, close, etc. While a control is responding to an event, all other events are held back in the queue. So if your application is taking unduly long to process a button-click, rest of the application would appear to freeze. Consequently it is possible that your application appears unresponsive while it is doing some heavy processing in response to an event. While you should ideally do heavy processing in an asynchronous manner to ensure that the UI doesn’t freeze, a quick and easy solution is to just call Application.DoEvents() periodically to allow pending events to be sent to your application.
For good windows application, end user doesn’t like when any form of application are freezing out while performing larger/heavyweight operation. User always wants application run smoothly and in responsive manner rather than freezing UI. But after googling i found that Application.DoEvents() is not a good practice to use in application more frequently so instead this events it’s better to use BackGround Worker Thread for performing long running task without freezing windows.
You can get better idea if you practically look it. Just copy following code and check application with and without putting Application.DoEvents().
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
For i As Integer = 0 To 1000
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100)
ListBox1.Items.Add(i.ToString())
Application.DoEvents()
Next
End Sub
Imho you should more less never use it, as you might end up with very unexpected behavior.
Just generated code is ok. Things like you are executing again the event handler you are currently in,because the user pressed a key twice etc etc.
If you want to refresh a control to display the current process you should explicitly call .Update on that control in instead of calling Application.DoEvents.