Programming with the BackgroundWorker Component in .NET 2.0
Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Apr 2006 03:53 UTC
.NET (dotGNU too) Most of the time, your computer's CPU is sitting idle. Paul Kimmel shows how easy it is to use multithreading with the new BackgroundWorker component in .NET 2.0, so you can stop your bored gadgetry from wasting all that idle time.
E-mail Print r 0   12 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/b0s
Order by: Score:
Add Comment Post a Comment
Not a good idea
by ValiantSoul on Mon 10th Apr 2006 04:02 UTC
ValiantSoul
Member since:
2005-07-20

Then when we actually use software that keeps our processors busy your software will bogg us down - nice ;)

I'm a software developer and while I'm working I have a lot of stuff open and going such as tests, my IDE, internet, etc. My processor is almost always between 80% and 100% use. Purposefully bloating software and making it use up (in my case) precious CPU cycles does not seem like a good iea.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Not a good idea
by tummy on Mon 10th Apr 2006 04:32 UTC in reply to "Not a good idea"
tummy Member since:
2005-09-14

WTF? You're not really a software developer are you?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Not a good idea
by someone on Mon 10th Apr 2006 04:45 UTC in reply to "Not a good idea"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Then when we actually use software that keeps our processors busy your software will bogg us down - nice ;)

This is *not* about adding more bloat to software. Multithreading is extremely useful for maximizing throughput on servers and responsiveness on clients. If your client-side application is 100% single threaded, your GUI repainting would be blocked by HD access, which would make your application appear very slow and unprofessional. On servers, you would not be able to make the most out of your 512 processing cores without multithreading.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Not a good idea
by ValiantSoul on Mon 10th Apr 2006 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Not a good idea"
ValiantSoul Member since:
2005-07-20

Ok I admit I did not read the article - just read the summary and thought they were figuring most people have idle time so go ahead and eye candy up your apps (saw Background and figured it meant background images in your apps) - my mistake

Edited 2006-04-10 05:07

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not a good idea
by Litespeed on Mon 10th Apr 2006 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not a good idea"
Litespeed Member since:
2006-04-10

I don't even think you read the summary. It clearly says "multithreading with the new BackgroundWorker component".

I didn't read the article either because I already know how to use the .Net 2.0 BackgroundWorker component.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not a good idea
by TownDrunk on Mon 10th Apr 2006 11:30 UTC in reply to "Not a good idea"
TownDrunk Member since:
2005-11-28

You gotta love it when an idiot comments on articles they don't read...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Not a good idea
by ValiantSoul on Mon 10th Apr 2006 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Not a good idea"
ValiantSoul Member since:
2005-07-20

Yes I'm a /.er

Reply Score: 1

...
by Mitarai on Mon 10th Apr 2006 04:42 UTC
Mitarai
Member since:
2005-07-28

Who told you that an extra threath would consume 80 to 100% of the CPU?

Threats are you friends if you know how to use them well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by mym6 on Mon 10th Apr 2006 13:52 UTC in reply to "..."
mym6 Member since:
2005-08-26

Threats or threads? I suppose both are effective given the right circumstances.

Reply Score: 3

idle ?
by aaronb on Mon 10th Apr 2006 06:29 UTC
aaronb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Nope.

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/

You can participate in more than one project, and you control how much of your computing power goes to each project. If you participate in several projects, your computer will be kept busy even when one project has no work.

Reply Score: 1

Bug in ProgressUpdater
by dalle on Mon 10th Apr 2006 12:54 UTC
dalle
Member since:
2006-04-10

It's missing the Else-clause, shouldn't it be something like:

Private Sub ProgressUpdater(ByVal percent As Integer)
If (InvokeRequired) Then
Invoke(New Updater(AddressOf ProgressUpdater), percent)
Else
ProgressBar1.Value = percent
End If
End Sub

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bug in ProgressUpdater
by taumuon on Tue 11th Apr 2006 10:30 UTC in reply to "Bug in ProgressUpdater"
taumuon Member since:
2006-04-11

I just commented on the article saying this, and noting that ProgressUpdater is run on the UI thread so the bug is never encountered ;)

Reply Score: 1

Add Comment Post a Comment