I was attracted to Fyne (and hence Go) by a promise of thread safety. But now that I'm getting better at reading Go I'm seeing things that make be believe that the API as a whole is not thread safe and perhaps was never intended to be. So I'm trying to determine what "thread safe" means in Fyne.
I'm looking specifically at
func (l *Label) SetText(text string) {
l.Text = text
l.textProvider.SetText(text) // calls refresh
}
and noting that l.Text is also a string. Assignments in Go are not thread safe, so it seems obvious to me that if two threads fight over the text of a label and both call label.SetText at the same time, I can expect memory corruption.
"But you wouldn't do that", one might say. No, but I am worried about the case of someone editing the content of an Entry while an app thread decides it needs to replace all the Entry's text - this is entirely possible in my app because it supports simultaneous editing by multiple users over a network, so updates to all sorts of widgets come in asynchronously. (Note I don't care what happens if two people edit the same Entry at the same time; someone's changes will be lost and I don't care who's. But it must not result in memory corruption.) Note that one approach I could take would be to have the background thread create an entirely new Entry widget, which would then replace the one in the current Box. But is that thread safe?
It's not that I don't know how to serialize things with channels. But I was hoping that Fyne would eliminate the need for it (a blog post claims it does); and even using channels I can't convince myself that a user meddling with a widget in various ways while some background thread is altering it, hiding it, etc, isn't going to result in crashes. Maybe all that is serialized under the covers and is perfectly safe, but I don't want to find out the hard way that it isn't, because I'll have no way to fix it.
Fyne is clearly pretty new and seems to have tons of promise, but documentation seems light on details. Is more information available somewhere? Have people tried this successfully?
You have found some race conditions here. There are plans to improve, but the 1.2 release was required to get a new "BaseWidget" first - and that was only released a few weeks ago.
Setting fields directly is primarily for setup purposes and so not expected to be used in the way you illustrate. That said, we do want to support it. The base widget will soon introduce something akin to SetFieldsAndRefresh(func()) which will ensure the safety of the code passed and refresh the widget afterward.
There is indeed a race currently within Refresh(). The use of channels internally were designed to remove this - but there are some corners such as multiple goroutines calling it. This is the area that our new BaseWidget code can help with - as they can internally lock automatically. Using this approach will be thread safe with no changes to the developer in a future release.
The API so far has made it possible for developers to not worry about threading and work from any goroutines - we do need to work internally to make it safer - you are quite right. https://github.com/fyne-io/fyne/issues/506
Related
A simple search for DoEvents brings up lots of results that lead, basically, to:
DoEvents is evil. Don't use it. Use threading instead.
The reasons generally cited are:
Re-entrancy issues
Poor performance
Usability issues (e.g. drag/drop over a disabled window)
But some notable Win32 functions such as TrackPopupMenu and DoDragDrop perform their own message processing to keep the UI responsive, just like DoEvents does.
And yet, none of these seem to come across these issues (performance, re-entrancy, etc.).
How do they do it? How do they avoid the problems cited with DoEvents? (Or do they?)
DoEvents() is dangerous. But I bet you do lots of dangerous things every day. Just yesterday I set off a few explosive devices (future readers: note the original post date relative to a certain American holiday). With care, we can sometimes account for the dangers. Of course, that means knowing and understanding what the dangers are:
Re-entry issues. There are actually two dangers here:
Part of the problem here has to do with the call stack. If you call .DoEvents() in a loop that itself handles messages that use DoEvents(), and so on, you're getting a pretty deep call stack. It's easy to over-use DoEvents() and accidentally fill up your call stack, resulting in a StackOverflow exception. If you're only using .DoEvents() in one or two places, you're probably okay. If it's the first tool you reach for whenever you have a long-running process, you can easily find yourself in trouble here. Even one use in the wrong place can make it possible for a user to force a stackoverflow exception (sometimes just by holding down the enter key), and that can be a security issue.
It is sometimes possible to find your same method on the call stack twice. If you didn't build the method with this in mind (hint: you probably didn't) then bad things can happen. If everything passed in to the method is a value type, and there is no dependance on things outside of the method, you might be fine. But otherwise, you need to think carefully about what happens if your entire method were to run again before control is returned to you at the point where .DoEvents() is called. What parameters or resources outside of your method might be modified that you did not expect? Does your method change any objects, where both instances on the stack might be acting on the same object?
Performance Issues. DoEvents() can give the illusion of multi-threading, but it's not real mutlithreading. This has at least three real dangers:
When you call DoEvents(), you are giving control on your existing thread back to the message pump. The message pump might in turn give control to something else, and that something else might take a while. The result is that your original operation could take much longer to finish than if it were in a thread by itself that never yields control, definitely longer than it needs.
Duplication of work. Since it's possible to find yourself running the same method twice, and we already know this method is expensive/long-running (or you wouldn't need DoEvents() in the first place), even if you accounted for all the external dependencies mentioned above so there are no adverse side effects, you may still end up duplicating a lot of work.
The other issue is the extreme version of the first: a potential to deadlock. If something else in your program depends on your process finishing, and will block until it does, and that thing is called by the message pump from DoEvents(), your app will get stuck and become unresponsive. This may sound far-fetched, but in practice it's surprisingly easy to do accidentally, and the crashes are very hard to find and debug later. This is at the root of some of the hung app situations you may have experienced on your own computer.
Usability Issues. These are side-effects that result from not properly accounting for the other dangers. There's nothing new here, as long as you looked in other places appropriately.
If you can be sure you accounted for all these things, then go ahead. But really, if DoEvents() is the first place you look to solve UI responsiveness/updating issues, you're probably not accounting for all of those issues correctly. If it's not the first place you look, there are enough other options that I would question how you made it to considering DoEvents() at all. Today, DoEvents() exists mainly for compatibility with older code that came into being before other credible options where available, and as a crutch for newer programmers who haven't yet gained enough experience for exposure to the other options.
The reality is that most of the time, at least in the .Net world, a BackgroundWorker component is nearly as easy, at least once you've done it once or twice, and it will do the job in a safe way. More recently, the async/await pattern or the use of a Task can be much more effective and safe, without needing to delve into full-blown multi-threaded code on your own.
Back in 16-bit Windows days, when every task shared a single thread, the only way to keep a program responsive within a tight loop was DoEvents. It is this non-modal usage that is discouraged in favor of threads. Here's a typical example:
' Process image
For y = 1 To height
For x = 1 to width
ProcessPixel x, y
End For
DoEvents ' <-- DON'T DO THIS -- just put the whole loop in another thread
End For
For modal things (like tracking a popup), it is likely to still be OK.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that DoDragDrop and TrackPopupMenu are rather special cases, in that they take over the UI, so don't have the reentrancy problem (which I think is the main reason people describe DoEvents as "Evil").
Personally I don't think it's helpful to dismiss a feature as "Evil" - rather explain the pitfalls so that people can decide for themselves. In the case of DoEvents there are rare cases where it's still reasonable to use it, for example while a modal progress dialog is displayed, where the user can't interact with the rest of the UI so there is no re-entrancy issue.
Of course, if by "Evil" you mean "something you shouldn't use without fully understanding the pitfalls", then I agree that DoEvents is evil.
What are some of the obscure pitfalls of using Core Data and threads? I've read much of the documentation, and so far I've come across the following either in the docs or through painful experience:
Use a new NSManagedObjectContext for each thread, but a single NSPersistentStoreCoordinator is enough for the whole app.
Before sending an NSManagedObject's objectID back to the main thread (or any other thread), be sure the context has been saved (or at a minimum, it wasn't a newly-inserted-but-not-yet-saved object) - otherwise the objectID will actually be a temporary ID and not a persistent one.
Use mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification: to detect when a save happens in another thread and use that to merge those changes with the current thread's context.
Bonus question/observation: I was led to believe by the wording of some of the docs that mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification: is something only needed by the main thread to merge changes into the "main" context from worker threads - but I don't think that's the case.
I set up my importer to create batches of data which are imported using a subclass of an NSOperation that owns it's own context. The operations are loaded into an NSOperationQueue that's set to allow the default number of concurrent operations, so it's possible for several import batches to be running at the same time. I would occasionally get very strange validation errors and exceptions (like trying to add nil to a relationship) and other failures that I had never seen when I did all the same stuff on the main thread. It occurred to me (and perhaps this should have been obvious) that maybe the context merging needed to be done for all contexts in every thread - not just the "main" one! I don't know why I didn't think of that before, but I think this helped. (It hasn't been tested well enough yet for me to feel sure, though.) In any case, is it true that you need to observe that notification for ALL import threads that may be working with the same datasets and adding/updating the same entities? If so, this is yet another pitfall bullet point, IMO, although I have yet to be certain that it'll work.
Given how many of these I've run into with Core Data in general (and not all of them just about multi-threading), I have to wonder how many more are lurking. Since multi-threading so often ends up with bugs that are difficult if not impossible to reproduce due to the timing issues, I figured I'd ask if anyone had other important things that I may be missing that I need to concern myself with.
There is an entire rather large bit of documentation devoted to the subject of Core Data and Threading.
It isn't clear from your set of issues what isn't covered by that documentation.
Does midiOutPrepareHeader, midiInPrepareHeader just setup some data fields, or does it do something that is more time intensive?
I am trying to decide whether to build and destroy the MIDIHDR's as needed, or to maintain a pool of them.
You really have only two ways to tell (without the Windows source):
1) Profile it. Depending on your findings for how long it takes, have a debug-only scoped timer that logs when it suddenly takes longer than what you think is acceptable for your application, or do your pool solution. Though the docs say not to modify the buffer once you call the prepare function, and it seems if you wanted to re-use it you may have to modify it. I'm not familiar enough with the docs to say one way or the other if your proposed solution would work.
2) Step through the assembly and see. Don't be afraid. Get the MSFT public symbols and see if it looks like it's just filling out fields or if it's doing something complicated.
I am developing a multi-threaded application in Cocoa. The main thread takes values from the user, and when a button is clicked I invoke a secondary thread in which a long calculation takes place. Now from this thread I have to return the output of every step of the calculation to the main thread. I want to periodically send data from one thread to the other. I can't find any simple example that does this. Any ideas?
There are a number of ways to do this, in rough order of complexity (easiest first):
use NSObject's performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: which is pretty self explanatory.
use performSelector:onThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:, which will let you go the other way
use an NSNotification (and NSDistributedNotificationCenter), though you can easily run into a race condition if you're not careful
Use NSPorts to send data back and forth
Check out the doc that Abizer mentioned for details on all of these.
performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: is often the easiest way to update the UI with a background thread's progress. You could also create your own storage area that's safe to access between threads using NSLock or a similar mechanism, or even use distributed objects (which also works between processes or over a network).
Then there's NSOperationQueue and NSOperation which does help a lot to simplify multi-threaded programming, although a lot of programmers have been avoiding it since it can cause a crash in certain circumstances under Leopard.
Have a look at the Apple docs for this.
You may need to create an ADC member account, but this is free
Multi-threaded Cocoa Programs
I'm going back over some crufty code to tidy it up and I see I've been retaining NSTimers returned from scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:target:selector:userInfo:repeats: and storing them in a field - then releasing and nulling the field when it fires. In some cases I use the timer to send an invalidate message to it later - but in many cases not.
In more recent code I usually just schedule the timer and forget about it. I understand that the constructor method is autoreleasing and the timer is retained by the run loop while it is active - so I don't see any issue with this.
So, just to round out my understanding - is there any other reason I should be holding on to my timers, or is what I am doing now the accepted idiom?
This is all in the context of iPhone code, but I don't believe this is iPhone specific.
I just let the run loop handle the retention, myself - it's the run loop that owns the timer and not me. If you see what I mean.
I'm answering my own question.
I was mostly asking the question because I'd been browsing through the class reference docs and this issue was not really made clear. I've since read the Timer Programming Topics: Using Timers article in the ADC and it covers it pretty well - especially the section on memory management at the end.
According to that what I am doing now (just scheduling, unless I need to be able to call invalidate, or isValid etc) is the right way.