wait

I learned that calling an Object's wait() method will release the object monitor, if present. But I have some questions regarding calling notify() on this object by another thread: (when) will the waiting thread wake up, if another (a 3rd) thread owns the object monitor in the meanwhile? will the waiting thread wake up, if a 3rd thread called wait() on this object? is it possible to determine if a thread is waiting for notifying a particular object (java 1.4/java 5) What's happening if wait() will be called in the finalize() method? notify will wake one thread waiting on the monitor. Unless

I have this issue with a method in C#. I made a method that calls a function from a dll its called Phone.GetLampMode(); Now Phone.GetLampMode doesnt return anything. The data gets returned in a event the ' onGetLampModeResponse ' event. Is there a way i can wait in my method until i get the data from the onGetLampModeResponse event? public bool checkLamp(int iLamp) { Phone.ButtonIDConstants btn = new Phone.ButtonIDConstants(); btn = Phone.ButtonIDConstants.BUTTON_1; btn += iLamp; Phone.GetLampMode(btn, null); return true; } private void Phone_OnGetLampModeResponse(object sender, Phone

Before a thread can wait on an object, it has to acquire a monitor on that object. The monitor is then released, and the thread attempts to re-acquired it once it awakes. But what happens to other monitors the thread holds when it calls wait ? Consider this example: Object a = // ... Object b = // ... synchronized(a) { synchronized(b) { b.wait(); // continue } } When the thread calls b.wait() , will it release the locks on both a and b , or only b ? Only b . The authoritarian source for these type of questions is the Java Language Specification. The relevant section in this case is 17.8 Wait

I am in doubt with that , in Java language, we need to acquire the lock, before we await some condition to be satisfied. For example, int java monitor lock: synchronized(lock){ System.out.println("before lock ..."); lock.wait(); System.out.println("after lock ..."); } or the concurrency utils: Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(); Condition cond = lock.newCondition(); lock.lock(); try{ System.out.println("before condition ..."); cond.await(); System.out.println("after condition ..."); }catch(Exception e){ e.printStackTrace(); }finally{ lock.unlock(); } So, why we can't await, without hold the lock

I saw other protractor related post mentioning about how to wait for an element to become visible. However, recently, I ran into an opposite use case. I wanted to wait for an element until it becomes invisible. Since I could not find anything specific about it. I went ahead and came up with a solution. var ptor = protractor.getInstance(); ptor.wait(function() { return element(by.css('#my-css-here')).isDisplayed().then(function(isVisible){ console.log('is visible :' + isVisible); return !isVisible; }); }, 12000).then(function(){ //do whatever you want }); hopefully it helps. any suggestion is

The misunderstanding happens when implicit wait is less than explicit: var timeOut = 5000; var search = element(by.xpath(`//*[@name='qwer']`)); browser.manage().timeouts().implicitlyWait(4000); browser.ignoreSynchronization = true; describe('Protractor Test', function () { beforeEach(function () { browser.get('https://www.google.com.ua'); }); it('EC', function () { console.log('START'); // browser.sleep(timeOut); browser.wait(protractor.ExpectedConditions.presenceOf(search), timeOut); }); }); Overall time: 8.613 seconds. Set implicitlyWait a second lower: 3000 and result is 6.865 seconds. How