[solved] Sleep in a thread

[dbannon]

Clearly, its a bad thing to do any sort of sizable sleep() in an LCL app's main thread but I would like to call sleep() in a 'background' thread for, perhaps, two seconds at a time while that thread waits to get a lock before proceeds to do some file i/o.

Seems reasonable to me and far less overhead than creating a timer. Am I sounding reasonable ?

Davo

[Dzandaa]

Hi,

Just for info, I use this procedure for Sleep that enable Messages process:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. // ********************************************
2. // ***** Real Sleep with Messages Process         *****
3. // ********************************************
4. procedure RealSleep(DelayTickCount: QWORD);
5. var
6.  StartTickCount : QWORD;
7. begin
8.  StartTickCount := GetTickCount64;
9.  while (GetTickCount64 < StartTickCount + DelayTickCount) and (not Application.Terminated) do
10.  begin
11.   Application.ProcessMessages;
12.   Sleep(10);
13.  end;
14. end;
15.  

B->

[rvk]

Just for info, I use this procedure for Sleep that enable Messages process:

This is not needed in a thread. When you sleep() in a thread, the main thread still runs and it messages get processed.

Only when you want to sleep in the main thread you would want the Application.ProcessMessages with a small sleep() proc.

Seems reasonable to me and far less overhead than creating a timer. Am I sounding reasonable ?

I'm not sure if the TTimer itself adds much overhead.
It does however pull the file i/o (opening a locked file) into the foreground/main thread (i.e. the TTimer procedure) and that might be undesirable. That depends on your applications.

[MarkMLl]

Clearly, its a bad thing to do any sort of sizable sleep() in an LCL app's main thread but I would like to call sleep() in a 'background' thread for, perhaps, two seconds at a time while that thread waits to get a lock before proceeds to do some file i/o.

Seems reasonable to me and far less overhead than creating a timer. Am I sounding reasonable ?

Yes, entirely IMO. There's often "purer" ways of doing it based on events etc., and in your case there might be a way of integrating your OS's File Alteration Monitor with events, but on occasion the "obvious" way and in particular the "obvious to a maintainer" way has a great deal going for it.

MarkMLl

[dbannon]

Thanks folks, I will now do it with a clear conscious.

Davo