nonblocking

问题 I just found the following OpenGL specification for ARB_map_buffer_range. I'm wondering if it is possible to do non-blocking map calls using this extension? Currently in my application im rendering to an FBO which I then map to a host PBO buffer. glMapBuffer(target_, GL_READ_ONLY); However, the problem with this is that it blocks the rendering thread while transferring the data. I could reduce this issue by pipelining the rendering, but latency is a big issue in my application. My question is

问题 I just found the following OpenGL specification for ARB_map_buffer_range. I'm wondering if it is possible to do non-blocking map calls using this extension? Currently in my application im rendering to an FBO which I then map to a host PBO buffer. glMapBuffer(target_, GL_READ_ONLY); However, the problem with this is that it blocks the rendering thread while transferring the data. I could reduce this issue by pipelining the rendering, but latency is a big issue in my application. My question is

问题 Im working on a socket listener that has to listen on 2 ports for 2 types of data( port 80 and port 81). These data are very similar as in the kind of operations that are performed on the data and are just different because they arrive n different ports. I went ahead and coded an implementation using Java's ServerSocket class, only to realize later that the accept() method of the ServerSocket class is block and my implementation cant afford that. So now i was thinking of implementing the same

问题 Im working on a socket listener that has to listen on 2 ports for 2 types of data( port 80 and port 81). These data are very similar as in the kind of operations that are performed on the data and are just different because they arrive n different ports. I went ahead and coded an implementation using Java's ServerSocket class, only to realize later that the accept() method of the ServerSocket class is block and my implementation cant afford that. So now i was thinking of implementing the same

问题 In my web application, I have a series of ajax calls that are fired rapidly. On the server, these need to be processed in the same order as they are sent from the client. I have been using the async: false configuration in jQuery to do this. However this causes the GUI to become very sluggish while it blocks for calls to finish. With async: true the GUI is responsive, but the requests are not always processed in order. Is there an alternative non-blocking way to queue up ajax requests, so the

问题 Is there a clean way to resolve a DNS query (get IP by hostname) in Java asynchronously, in non-blocking way (i.e. state machine, not 1 query = 1 thread - I'd like to run tens of thousands queries simultaneously, but not run tens of thousands of threads)? What I've found so far: Standard InetAddress.getByName() implementation is blocking and looks like standard Java libraries lack any non-blocking implementations. Resolving DNS in bulk question discusses similar problem, but the only solution

问题 I am implementing a simple server, that accepts a single connection and then uses that socket to simultaneously read and write messages from the read and write threads. What is the safe and easy way to simultaneously read and write from the same socket descriptor in c/c++ on linux? I dont need to worry about multiple threads read and writing from the same socket as there will be a single dedicated read and single dedicated write thread writing to the socket. In the above scenario, is any kind

问题 I'm using .net 3.5 named pipes and my server side is : serverPipeStream = new NamedPipeServerStream("myPipe", PipeDirection.InOut, 1, PipeTransmissionMode.Byte, PipeOptions.Asynchronous); When I write some data with, say, BinaryWriter, the write() call itself doesn't return until the client side has called a read() on its NamedPipeClientStream. The BinaryWriter is : writer = new BinaryWriter(serverPipeStream); I'm aware that NamedPipeServerStream offers a BeginRead/BeginWrite but from what I

问题 A very good article (When Runtime.exec() won't) says: The only possible time you would use exitValue() instead of waitFor() would be when you don't want your program to block waiting on an external process that may never complete. Instead of using the waitFor() method, I would prefer passing a boolean parameter called waitFor into the exitValue() method to determine whether or not the current thread should wait. A boolean would be more beneficial because exitValue() is a more appropriate name

问题 Basically, I have a URL that streams xml updates from a chat room when new messages are posted. I'd like to turn that URL into an InputStream and continue reading from it as long as the connection is maintained and as long as I haven't sent a Thread.interrupt(). The problem I'm experiencing is that BufferedReader.ready() doesn't seem to become true when there is content to be read from the stream. I'm using the following code: BufferedReader buf = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(ins)