It seem that the only implementation that provide Safe Cross-Thread Signals for both the Signal class and what's being called in the slot is QT. (Maybe I'm wrong?).
But I cannot use QT in the project I'm doing. So how could I provide safe Slots call from a different thread (Using Boost::signals2 for example)? Are mutex inside the slot the only way? I think signals2 protect themself but not what's being done inside the slot.
Thanks
You can combine boost::bind and boost ASIO to create Cross-Thread Calls.
# In Thread 2
boost::asio::io_service service;
boost::asio::io_service::work work (service); // so io service won't stop if there is no work
service.run() # starting work thread
# In Thread 1
service.post (boost::bind (&YourClass::function, &yourClassInstance, parameter1, parameter2))
Thread 2 will go into a loop and will execute your bound function. I think you can also call Boost::Signals2 calls into this loop.
But keep care: If you do cross-thread-signaling, make sure that the destination object still exists when being called. You can garantuee that by dropping all connections in your targets destructor (not in their base class destructor, also see Signals-Trackable Class)
I do not like Boost::Signals2 oo much, because of its very long stack trace and compile times (blog post).
It's not a signals-slots implementation, exactly, but there's a C++ implementation of Twisted's Deferred pattern that accomplishes a similar goal to a cross-thread signal-slot mechanism. If someone doesn't come along and post a better solution, it might be worth a look: http://sourceforge.net/projects/deferred/
Related
I've faced quite an odd problem with QtConcurrent, mostly because of strange programming desires, maybe it's just an XY-problem, but...
So, there is my code, trying to communicate with the database, a backend code actually (on Qt, yes). It has to work quick and handle some requests, so I need a thread pool. As a well-known fact I suppose the connection establishing itself is a very time-consuming operation, so there is a need in persistent database connections resulting in persistent threads (QSqlDatabase cannot be moved around between the threads). Also it is quite natural to want asynchronous request handling, thus resulting in some need of a simple way to pass them to the persistent threads.
Nothing too complex, lets assume there already exists some boilerplate in a form like...
// That's what I want for now
QFuture<int> res = workers[i]->async(param1, param2);
// OR
// That's what I DO NOT want to get
workers[i]->async(param1, param2, [](QFuture<int> res) { // QFuture to pass exceptions
// callback here
});
That can be done for sure. Why not std::future? Well, it is much easier to use QFutureWatcher and it's signals for notifications about result's readiness. Pure C++ notification solutions are muuuch more complex and callbacks are also someting that has to be dragged through the class hierarchy. Each worker interfaces a thread with DB connections, obviously.
Okay, all of that can be written, but... custom thread pool would mean no QtConcurrent convenience, there seem to be only risky ways to create that QFuture so that it could be returned by the custom worker. QThreadPool is of no use, because it would be a whole big story to create persistent runnables in it. More to say, the boilerplate I've briefly described is gonna be some kind of project's core, used in many places, not something to be easily replaced by a 100 hand-made thread managings.
In short: if I could construst a QFuture for my results, the problem would be solved.
Could anyone point me to a solution or a workaround? Would be grateful for any bright ideas.
UPD:
#VladimirBershov offered a good modern solution which implements observer pattern. After some googling I've found a QPromise library. Of course, constructing a custom QFuture is still hacky and can be only done via undocumented QFutureInterface class, but still some "promise-like" solution makes asynchronous calls neater by far as I can judge.
You can use AsyncFuture library as a custom QFuture creation tool or ideas source:
AsyncFuture - Use QFuture like a Promise object
QFuture is used together with QtConcurrent to represent the result of
an asynchronous computation. It is a powerful component for
multi-thread programming. But its usage is limited to the result of
threads, it doesn't work with the asynchronous signal emitted by
QObject. And it is a bit trouble to setup the listener function via
QFutureWatcher.
AsyncFuture is designed to enhance the function to offer a better way
to use it for asynchronous programming. It provides a Promise object
like interface. This project is inspired by AsynQt and RxCpp.
Features:
Convert a signal from QObject into a QFuture object
Combine multiple futures with different type into a single future object
Use Future like a Promise object
Chainable Callback - Advanced multi-threading programming model
Convert a signal from QObject into a QFuture object:
#include "asyncfuture.h"
using namespace AsyncFuture;
// Convert a signal from QObject into a QFuture object
QFuture<void> future = observe(timer, &QTimer::timeout).future();
/* Listen from the future without using QFutureWatcher<T>*/
observe(future).subscribe([]() {
// onCompleted. It is invoked when the observed future is finished successfully
qDebug() << "onCompleted";
},[]() {
// onCanceled
qDebug() << "onCancel";
});
My idea is to use thread pools with maximum 1 thread available for each.
QThreadPool* persistentThread = new QThreadPool; // no need to write custom thread pool
persistentThread->setMaxThreadCount(1);
persistentThread->setExpiryTimeout(-1);
and then
QFuture<int> future_1 = QtConcurrent::run(persistentThread, func_1);
QFuture<int> future_2 = QtConcurrent::run(persistentThread, func_2);
func_2 will be executed after func_1 in the same one "persistent" thread.
I have some existing code that uses std::future/std::promise that I'd like to integrate with a Qt GUI cleanly.
Ideally, one could just:
std::future<int> future{do_something()};
connect(future, this, &MyObject::resultOfFuture);
and then implement resultOfFuture as a slot that gets one argument: the int value that came out of the std::future<int>. I've added this suggestion as a comment on QTBUG-50676. I like this best because most of my future/promises are not concurrent anyway, so I'd like to avoid firing up a thread just to wait on them. Also, type inference could then work between the future and the slot's parameter.
But it seems to me that this shouldn't be hard to implement using a wrapper Qt object (e.g., a version of QFutureWatcher that takes a std::future<int>). The two issues with a wrapper are:
the wrapper will have to be concrete in its result type.
the watcher would have to be concurrent in a thread?
Is there a best-practice to implement this sort of connection? Is there another way that can hook into the Qt main loop and avoid thread creation?
std::future is missing continuations. The only way to turn the result of a std::future asynchronously into a function call delivering the result is to launch a thread watching it, and if you want to avoid busy-waiting you need one such thread per std::future, as there is no way to lazy-wait on multiple futures at once.
There are plans to create a future with continuation (a then operation), but they are not in C++ as of c++17 let alone c++11.
You could write your own system of future/promise that mimics the interface of std::future and std::promise that does support continuations, or find a library that already did that.
A busy-wait solution that regularly checked if the future was ready could avoid launching a new thread.
In any case, std::experimental::then would make your problem trivial.
future.then( [some_state](auto future){
try {
auto x = future.get();
// send message with x
} catch( ... ) {
// deal with exception
}
} );
you can write your own std::experimetnal::future or find an implementation to use yourself, but this functionality cannot be provided without using an extra thread with a std::future.
I'm trying to determine how calling QObject slots or Q_INVOKABLE methods from QML for a QObject that lives in another thread works, and whether or not its safe to do so.
Assume there's a MainThread and ThreadA. QObjectA lives in ThreadA. The QML engine/gui/everything lives in the MainThread. I expose QObjectA to the QML engine using
declarativeView->setContextProperty("someObj",ObjectA)
Now in a QML file, I call
someObj.someMethod();
Where someMethod is a slot or is Q_INVOKABLE. I'd like to know which thread actually executes the function. If it's MainThread, that would be a bad thing, and calling a method like that across threads would be dangerous. If it was executed by ThreadA however, all would be well.
Based on this documentation: http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7-snapshot/qtbinding.html, I'm assuming that QMetaObject::invokeMethod() is used to call the QObject function. That documentation (http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7-snapshot/qmetaobject.html#invokeMethod), shows that there are different connection types available, just like with Qt signals and slots.
I'd like to know if Qt's qml engine automagically chooses the right type for the situation when invoking C++ methods from QML across threads, and if so, calling methods for objects that live in other threads from QML is an acceptable practice.
As it became apparent a while ago, QML doesn't seem to be able to go across threads.
So one needs to implement a C++ side intermediate object that lives in the main thread to dispatch calls to objects in other threads.
QML object -> object in a different thread // doesn't work!!!
QML object -> C++ mediator object -> object in a different thread // WORKS!!!
Basically, "transcending" threads must happen in C++ entirely, thus the need of a mediator object.
I guess the someMethod will be executed in ThreadA since the object lives in that thread.
But normally if this gives a problem, then I would do something like this.
connect(&threadA, SIGNAL(started()), someObj, SLOT(someMethod());
But to start that ThreadA we need one more CppObject to link QML and CPP.
You can use this->thread(); or QThread::currentThreadId(); inside the slot to get the thread the slot is working in. It will always be the thread, the ObjectA was created in (if there was no moveToThread()).
The Qt-Engine will select the right Qt:ConnectionType by determine call and called thread.
Extra tip: You can use GammaRay or ThreadSanitizer to see current direct connections across threads.
QML logic is event-driven and all invokes are parts of JavaScript functions. JS functions may be event handlers (for ex. UI event handlers) or may be invoked somewhere in C++ code if you wrap them in QScript object. Also you can invoke them in JavaScript WorkerTherad. That is why only you can provide an answer, where does someObj.someMethod() invokation take place.
I rewriting some code that i written a long time ago.
The code is a class that start another worker thread with AfxBeginThread. When the thread ends, it needs to return it work to the calling class.
Actually when the thread ends it send a message by PostMessage with its results to the called class.
But this way is really dependent of MFC, and to do this my class have to implement all the MFC stuffs.
May be correct if instead of send a message it directly call a non-static method of this class ?
Rather than trying to call a method directly (which will introduce a whole new set of threading problems of its own), try using the native Win32 ::PostMessage() instead of the MFC implementation of the same function. Any thread can call ::PostMessage() to deliver a message to another thread safely.
It sounds as though you want to use regular threading primitives, not window messaging primitives.
Which version of AfxBeginThread are you using? If you pass it a class instance, you should be able to access the members of that class directly once you know its finished running. If you passed it a function pointer, you can pass any class pointer in with the lParam parameter, then use that as a communication context.
You just want to make sure that when you access the class you do it in a thread safe manner. If you wait till the thread has ended you should be fine. Otherwise you could use Critical Sections or Mutexes. See the MSDN article on thread synchronization primitives for more info.
I need to imlement in cocoa, a design that relies on multiple threads.
I started at the CoreFoundation level - I created a CFMessagePort and attached it to the CFRunLoop, but it was very inconvenient as (unlike on other platforms) it needs to have a (systemwide) unique name, and CFMessagePortSendRequest does not process callbacks back to the current thread while waiting. Its possible to create my own CFRunLoopSource object, but building my own thread safe queue seems like overkill.
I then switched from using POSIX threads to NSThreads, calling performSelector:onThread: to send messages to other threads. This is far easier to use than the CFMessagePort mechanism, but again, performSelector:onThread: does not allow the main thread to send messages back to the current thread - and there is no return value.
All I need is a simple - inprocess - mechanism (so I hopefully don't need to invent schemes to create 'unique' names) that lets me send a message (and wait for a reply) from thread A to thread B, and, while waiting for the message, allow thread B to send a message (and wait for a reply) to/from thread A.
A simple: A calls B re-entrantly calls A situation that's so usual on a single thread, but is deadlock hell when the messages are between threads.
use -performSelectorOnThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:. The object you pass would be something that has a property or other "slot" that you can put the return value in. e.g.
SomeObject* retObject = [[SomeObject alloc] init];
[anotherObject performSelectorOnThread: whateverThread withObject: retObject waitUntilDone: YES];
id retValue = [retObject retValue];
If you want to be really sophisticated about it, instead of passing an object of a class you define, use an NSInvocation object and simply invoke it on the other thread (make sure not to invoke the same NSInvocation on two threads simultaneously) e.g.
[invocation performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(invoke) withObject:NULL waitUntilDone:YES];
Edit
if you don't want to wait for the processing on the other thread to complete and you want a return value, you cannot avoid the other thread calling back into your thread. You can still use an invocation e.g.
[comObject setInvocation: myInvocation];
[comObject setCallingThread: [NSThread currentThread]];
[someObject performSelectorOnMainThread: #selector(runInvocation:) withObject: comObject waitUntilDone: NO];
// in someObject's implementation
-(void) runInvocation: (ComObject*) comObject
{
[[comObject invocation] invoke];
[self perfomSelector: #selctor(invocationComplete:)
onThread: [comObject callingThread]
withObject: [comObject invocation]];
}
If you don't like to create a new class to pass the thread and the invocation, use an NSDictionary instead e.g.
comObject = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys: invocation, "#invocation" [NSThread currentThread], #"thread", nil];
Be careful about object ownership. The various performSelector... methods retain both the receiver and the object until they are done but with asynchronous calls there might be a small window in which they could disappear if you are not careful.
Have you looked into Distributed Objects?
They're generally used for inter-process communication, but there's no real reason it can't be constrained to a single process with multiple threads. Better yet, if you go down this path, your design will trivially scale to multiple processes and even multiple machines.
You are also given the option of specifying behaviour by means of additional keywords like oneway, in, out, inout, bycopy and byref. An article written by David Chisnall (of GNUstep fame) explains the rationale for these.
All that said, the usual caveats apply: are you sure you need a threaded design, etc. etc? There are alternatives, such as using NSOperation (doc here) and NSOperationQueue, which allow you to explicitly state dependencies and let magic solve them for you. Perhaps have a good read of Apple's Concurrency Programming Guide to get a handle (no pun intended) on your options.
I only suggest this as you mentioned trying traditional POSIX threads, which leads me to believe that you may be trying to apply knowledge gleaned from other OSes and not taking full advantage of what OS X has to offer.