Printable View
How to make the program not to wait for the function? Well, I have a downloading program (uses URLDownloadToFile), but while it's downloading, the program is not responding (because it waits for the function). How can I make the program not wait for the function?
You'd probably want to use the advanced notion of threads.
Advanced notion of threads???
C++ (like C) does not inherently support the notion of allowing a function to execute in parallel with something else.
The way it is done, in practice, is to use multithreading techniques. That is typically done using library functions that, although not described in the C or C++ standards, are available on quite a few modern operating systems (eg windows, unix variants). The problem is, the libraries used (and the names of functions in them) are generally operating system dependent.
Under most modern variants of unix, the POSIX standard is supported. POSIX covers a number of things, including creation of threads and synchronisation mechanisms (I'll come back to that below). Essentially that means there is a way to use multithreading which is largely portable between unix variants. The problem with POSIX is that some things are very loosely specified, so there is some variation of what behaviour is achieved. Windows is also POSIX compliant, but the loose bits in the POSIX specification are interpreted differently by Microsoft --- hence a portability issue of taking a posix compliant program from unix to windows or vice versa. Windows also supports the win32 API, and some of the functions in that API are also related to multithreading and synchronisation mechanisms.
Multithreaded programming is usually described as an "advanced" topic. Not because of the portability issues above, but because of issues of interactions between threads. If two threads are accessing the same data concurrently, all sorts of trouble can break loose (particularly if one thread modifies data while another is reading it). There is no inherent mechanism in any operating system that ensures such issues do not occur. Instead, it is necessary to design the program to ensure that they do not. The usual method to do that is using objects designed for use with synchronisation (particular types of these objects are called mutexes, critical sections, or semaphores): essentially a lock that one thread locks before accessing shared data, and the other threads are required to wait for the lock to be released before accessing the same data. Such things are done explicitly by the program: in most cases, neither the operating system nor a compiler can FORCE a program to do synchronisation before accessing shared data. The result is that use of multithreading suddenly requires explicit consideration of how to synchronise access to data that is accessed from multiple threads (particularly if one of more threads modifies the shared data).
Things get even more complicated if multiple locks are employed (eg lock A is used to synchronise access to data X, and lock B is used to synchronise access to data Y). The reason this gets more complicated is that some threads may need access to data X and data Y. This means it is necessary to acquire both locks A and B. Picture a scenario where thread 1 acquires lock A first, and then lock B, but thread 2 acquires lock B first and then lock A. The problem with this is that thread 1 may succeed in acquiring lock A. But, then thread 2 comes along and acquires lock B. Then thread 1 attempts to acquire lock B, and is forced to wait for thread 2 to release it. But thread 2 then attempts to acquire lock A, which means it is forced to wait on thread 1. The result is deadlock: both thread 1 and thread 2 are waiting on the other to release a lock held by the other.
There are piles of issues with using threads, and synchronisation between them. The example I've given with a deadlock is a simple one. There are lots of other ways in which multithreaded programs can get in trouble. The next effect is that designing a multithreaded program is far from trivial. And, importantly, if you are doing things in multiple threads, the usual reason is that --- at some point --- the results of actions in multiple threads will come together in one place (eg to be displayed in a GUI). That "bringing together in one place" implies a need for synchronisation.
So... isnt there an alternative to multithreading to have a program respond while its operating on something?
Asynchronous calls, but that only works with some special functions that were made for it, like ReadFile.
Well, yeah, but then you have the problem of getting the program to respond to something while it's operating on something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dae
You can do it with asynchoronous operations (eg ReadFileEx() under windows), but that also relies on very specialised support by the underlying operating system. And is inherently non-portable as well: the functions used for asynchoronous reading, and triggering a response in the affected program when the read operation is completed, are even more specialised --- and therefore non-portable --- than threading functions.
Similarly, it can be done with interrupts at the hardware level (depending on your hardware) but, on most operating systems, you can't respond to interrupts directly.
There is also a technique known as "coroutines", which essentially requires you to break up your code into lots of small functions, and an executive executes those small pieces in sequence and checks for other events between the pieces. Designing coroutines is probably even more challenging than designing a program for multi-threading, as you also need to manage the scheduling of the coroutines.
My very basic MT tutorial with Windows starts here.
libcurl has asynch api you can use to avoid threading. Writing a threaded program without understanding the ins-and-outs of concurrency in a non-concurrent orientated language is probably going to lead to a disaster. I'd try to get a strong grasp on concurrency first if you want to use it to sovle yoru problem.
Thanks for the info, so do most programs use multithreading? Well.. I guess most do pause when they are saving files and such, but you've got things like P2P clients (or M$ WMP) that are searching, downloading, playing music/video, displaying a clock, and more all at the same time and dont pause (often).
It depends on who wrote them. With Asynch API's you can write it all in 1 thread. See http://www.twistedmatrix.com/ for an example.
http://threading.2038bug.com/index.html has some good information, don't take it's title too seriously.
http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html For an example of how threading doesn't really scale in non-Concurrent Orientated Langauges.
http://mozart-oz.org/ and http://www.erlang.org/ for examples of concurrent orientated langauges (where you concurrency is so lightweight you can have thousands of paths of execution).
The actions you listed can generally be handled in a single thread simply by passing events around.