I have a DLL written in C++ to be consumed by our clients - third party developers in their applications. The DLL has some facilities in to connect to our company's servers through winsock and communicate with the servers on a specific protocol.
The outstanding task is to send a kind of farewell message to the active server on application closing. But the only way of getting known about the event (application closing) I am aware about is DllMain/DLL_PROCESS_DETACH case. I know that it is not recommended, I read Raymond Chen's article about this and MSDN documentation, but instead of cautions I need a solution.
Of course I did a try to send the message from DllMain, but it seemed that at that moment winsock library had been already detached, as what I received was WSANOTINITIALISED (10093) error.
Also I tried to create a static finalizer like the following:
struct Finalization
{
~Finalization() {
// sending the message
}
};
static Finalization f;
without success either.
I feel that what I need is somewhat like a trigger point to know, when the process is going to terminate. The case of simultaneous using the library can be ignored, as its specific leaves absolutely no sense in that.
What I am thinking about is that the library is bundled with an interface header, that is going to be included in the customer's application. I could use the fact to place something in the file, a mutex or something like that.
Maybe it's worth mentioning that the previous version of the library was written in Delphi, and the parting message was sending from one of finalization sections, and it worked perfectly, perhaps just by chance.
Thank you in advance for your ideas.
Add to your DLL functions that initialise and finalise the DLL. Make it so that all consumers of the DLL call these functions. In the finalise function you can do whatever it is that you wish to do.
As you have discovered, leaving it to DllMain is no good. There's no way for you to escape that. DllMain is simply the wrong place to attempt socket comma.
Related
I worked on the synchronous libusb in my Qt project with good results and now I need the asynchronous features of this library. I understood reading here, here and here that, after I've registered my callback function using the libusb_fill_control_transfer and submitted a transfer with libusb_submit_transfer , I need to "keep live" the libusb_handle_events_completed inside a while loop to get the transfer related events since the libusb doesn't have its own thread. for example you can read a code like this
libusb_fill_control_transfer(transfer, dev, buffer, cb, &completed, 1000);
libusb_submit_transfer(transfer);
while (!completed) {
libusb_handle_events_completed(ctx, &completed);
}
Now if I want read a packet that I don't know when it occurs, I think that goes against the asynchronous nature submit a read and wait in the while with libusb_handle_events_completed until the event is triggered.
Then, do I need to create a separate thread within the libusb_handle_events_completed in an infinite while loop?
Can anyone, with experience in the asynchronous features of libusb library, give some suggestions on the right approach to handle the transfer events?
I want to invoke CefV8Context::Eval function and get the returned value in browser process's UI thread. But the CEF3 C++ API Docs states that V8 handles can only be accessed from the thread on which they are created. Valid threads for creating a V8 handle include the render process main thread (TID_RENDERER) and WebWorker threads. Is that means I should use the inter-process communication (CefProcessMessage) to invoke that method and get the return value? If so, how to do this in synchronous mode?
Short answer: CefFrame::ExecuteJavaScript for simple requests will work. For more complex ones, you have to give up one level of synchronousness or use a custom message loop.
What I understand you want to do is to execute some Javascript code as part of your native App's UI Thread. There are two possibilities:
It's generic JS code, doesn't really access any variables or functions in your JS, and as such has not context. This means Cef can just spin up a new V8 context and execute your code - see CefFrame::ExecuteJavaScript(). To quote the examples on CEF's JS Integration link:
CefRefPtr browser = ...;
CefRefPtr frame = browser->GetMainFrame();
frame->ExecuteJavaScript("alert('ExecuteJavaScript works!');",
frame->GetURL(), 0);
It's JS code with a context. In this case, read on.
Yes - CEF is designed such that only the RenderProcess has access to the V8 engine, you'll have to use a CefProcessMessage to head over to the Browser and do the evaluation there. You sound like you already know how to do that. I'll link an answer of mine for others who don't and may stumble upon this later: Background process on the native function at Chromium Embedded Framework
The CEFProcessMessage from Browser to Render processes is one place where the request has to be synchronized.
So after your send your logic over to the render process, you'll need to do the actual execution of the javascript code. That, thankfully, is quite easy - the same JS integration link goes on to say:
Native code can execute JS functions by using the ExecuteFunction()
and ExecuteFunctionWithContext() methods
The best part - the execution seems to be synchronous (I say seems to, since I can't find concrete docs on this). The usage in the examples illustrates this:
if (callback_func_->ExecuteFunctionWithContext(callback_context_, NULL, args, retval, exception, false)) {
if (exception.get()) {
// Execution threw an exception.
} else {
// Execution succeeded.
}
}
You'll notice that the second line assumes that the first has finished execution and that the results of said execution are available to it. So, The CefV8Value::ExecuteFunction() call is by nature synchronous.
So the question boils down to - How do I post a CefProcessMessage from Browser to Renderer process synchronously?. Unfortunately, the class itself is not set up to do that. What's more, the IPC Wiki Page explicitly disallows it:
Some messages should be synchronous from the renderer's perspective.
This happens mostly when there is a WebKit call to us that is supposed
to return something, but that we must do in the browser. Examples of
this type of messages are spell-checking and getting the cookies for
JavaScript. Synchronous browser-to-renderer IPC is disallowed to
prevent blocking the user-interface on a potentially flaky renderer.
Is this such a big deal? Well, I don't really know since I've not come across this need - to me, it's ok since the Browser's message loop will keep spinning away waiting for something to do, and receive nothing till your renderer sends a process message with the results of JS. The only way the browser gets something else to do is when some interaction happens, which can't since the renderer is blocking.
If you really definitely need synchronousness, I'd recommend that you use your custom MessageLoop which calls CefDoMessageLoopWork() on every iteration. That way, you can set a flag to suspend loop work until your message is received from renderer. Note that CefDoMessageLoopWork() and CefRunMessageLoop() are mutually exclusive and cannot work with each other - you either manage the loop yourself, or let CEF do it for you.
That was long, and covers most of what you might want to do - hope it helps!
I am new to creating Windows applications in C++. My task is to write two cpp files, one of which will send a number (x) to the other one, the other one will evaluate f(x) and send it back to the first one. I should implement it using Messages. Couldn't get anything specific online, Could someone pls give me a clue, where to start?
Great thanx!
Are you talking about window messages? If so, the sending app could use SendMessage, which would cause the receiving app to get its window procedure executed. Of course, this means that the receiving app needs to create a window whose window handle is somehow made available to the sending app.
You can do it in several ways.
Using WM_COPYDATA message to pass the data
Allocating global memory to pass data and sending your own message, such that second program can read the data from memory
Sending a message (if two ints suit your needs to pass data)
Using named pipes
Using TCP/IP local connection (peer to peer or through a server)
Look at ZeroMQ (http://zeromq.org ; cross-platform, LGPL). It is a very simple, lightweight and powerfull library. From the very basic level you can use it to exchange UDP-style datagrams, but through reliable transport (TCP or some variants). Also you have cancelling support, time-based polling and advanced network schemes (which are non-needed in your case). I've selected it for a similar task, and it performs very well.
I'm developing a DLL in C++ which needs to write some data via a (previously established) TCP/IP connection using the write() call. To be precise, the DLL should send a little 'Process 12345 is terminating at 2007-09-27 15:30:42, value of i is 131' message over the wire when the process goes down.
Unfortunately, all the ways I know for detecting that the process is ending are apparently too late for any network calls to succeed. In particular, I tried the following approaches and the write() call returned -1 in every case:
Calling write() from the destructor of a global object.
Calling write() from a callback function registered using atexit().
Calling write() from DllMain (in case the reason argument is DLL_PROCESS_DETACH). I know that this is not a safe thing to do, but I'm getting a bit desperate. :-)
I'm aware that a DLL can't detect any process shutdown (it might have been unloaded long before the process terminates) but since the shutdown data which the DLL needs to send depends on other code in the DLL, that's acceptable. I'm basically looking for the latest moment at which I can safely perform network IO.
Does anybody know how to do this?
Consider monitoring the process from a separate watchdog process.
Determining If a Process Has Exited: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/y111seb2(v=VS.71).aspx
Tutorial: Managing a Windows Process: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/s9tkk4a3(v=VS.71).aspx
Consider to use Windows Job Objects.
You main program (monitoring program, which will use for example send()) can start child process suspended, place it into a Job and then resume. Then it will run in the job object. You can register notification via SetInformationJobObject with JobObjectAssociateCompletionPortInformation. Then you will be notified if in the job will be created some child process and if some process inside of job will be ended. So you will be able to send all what you need from the monitoring process. If you debug a program in Visual Studio it uses also job objects to have control under your process and all child processes which you start.
I successfully use the technique in C++ and in C#. So if you will have some problem with implementation I could post you a code example.
I suggest taking option 3. Just do your DLL loading/unloading properly and you're fine. Calling write() should work, I can't explain why it's not in your case. Is it possible that the call fails for a different reason that is unrelated?
Does it work if you call your DLL function manually from the host app?
Why? Just close the socket. If that's the only close in the program, which by your description it must be, that tells the other end that this end is exiting, and you can send the process ID information at the beginning instead of the end. You shouldn't do anything time-consuming or potentially blocking in an exit hook or static destructor.
Where is Winsock being shut down using WSACleanup? You need to make sure that your I/O completes before this happens.
You should be able to work out if this is happening by placing a breakpoint on the Win32 call in Winsock2.dll. Unload of DLLs is displayed in the output in the debug window.
I have a remote server which handles various different commands, one of which is an event fetching method.
The event fetch returns right away if there is 1 or more events listed in the queue ready for processing. If the event queue is empty, this method does not return until a timeout of a few seconds. This way I don't run into any HTTP/socket timeouts. The moment an event becomes available, the method returns right away. This way the client only ever makes connections to the server, and the server does not have to make any connections to the client.
This event mechanism works nicely. I'm using the boost library to handle queues, event notifications, etc.
Here's the problem. While the server is holding back on returning from the event fetch method, during that time, I can't issue any other commands.
In the source code, XmlRpcDispatch.cpp, I'm seeing in the "work" method, a simple loop that uses a blocking call to "select".
Seems like while the handling of a method is busy, no other requests are processed.
Question: am I not seeing something and can XmlRpcpp (xmlrpc++) handle multiple requests asynchronously? Does anyone know of a better xmlrpc library for C++? I don't suppose the Boost library has a component that lets me issue remote commands?
I actually don't care about the XML or over-HTTP feature. I simply need to issue (asynchronous) commands over TCP in any shape or form?
I look forward to any input anyone might offer.
I had some problems with XMLRPC also, and investigated many solutions like GSoap and XMLRPC++, but in the end I gave up and wrote the whole HTTP+XMLRPC from scratch using Boost.ASIO and TinyXML++ (later I swaped TinyXML to expat). It wasn't really that much work; I did it myself in about a week, starting from scratch and ending up with many RPC calls fully implemented.
Boost.ASIO gave great results. It is, as its name says, totally async, and with excellent performance with little overhead, which to me was very important because it was running in an embedded environment (MIPS).
Later, and this might be your case, I changed XML to Google's Protocol-buffers, and was even happier. Its API, as well as its message containers, are all type safe (i.e. you send an int and a float, and it never gets converted to string and back, as is the case with XML), and once you get the hang of it, which doesn't take very long, its very productive solution.
My recomendation: if you can ditch XML, go with Boost.ASIO + ProtobufIf you need XML: Boost.ASIO + Expat
Doing this stuff from scratch is really worth it.