I have an older implementation using NAudio 1.6 to play a ring tone signalling an incoming call in an application. As soon as the user acceptes the call, I stop the playback.
Basically the follwing is done:
1. As soon as the I get an event that a call must be signalled, a timer is started
2. Inside this timer Play() on the player
3. When the timer starts again, a check is performed if the file is played by checking the CurrentTime property against the TotalTime propery of the WaveStream
4. When the user accepts the call, Stop() is called on the player and also stop the timer
The point is, that we run sometimes in cases where the playback is still repeated although the timer is stopped and the Stop() was called on the player.
In the following link I read that the classes BufferedWaveProvider and WaveChannel32 which are used in the code are always padding the buffer with zero.
http://mark-dot-net.blogspot.com/2011/05/naudio-and-playbackstopped-problem.html
Is it possible that the non-stopping playback is due to usage of the classes BufferedWaveProvider and WaveChannel32?
In NAudio 1.7 the AudioFileReader class is there. Is this class also padding with zeros? I did not find a property like PadWithZeroes in this class. Does it make to use AudioFileReader in this case of looped playback?
Below the code of the current implementation of the TimerElapsed
void TimerElapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
try
{
WaveStream stream = _audioStream as WaveStream;
if (stream != null && stream.CurrentTime >= stream.TotalTime )
{
StartPlayback();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//do some actions here
}
}
The following code creates the input stream:
private WaveStream CreateWavInputStream(string path)
{
WaveStream readerStream = new WaveFileReader(path);
if (readerStream.WaveFormat.Encoding != WaveFormatEncoding.Pcm)
{
readerStream = WaveFormatConversionStream.CreatePcmStream(readerStream);
readerStream = new BlockAlignReductionStream(readerStream);
}
if (readerStream.WaveFormat.BitsPerSample != 16)
{
var format = new WaveFormat(readerStream.WaveFormat.SampleRate, 16, readerStream.WaveFormat.Channels);
readerStream = new WaveFormatConversionStream(format, readerStream);
}
WaveChannel32 inputStream = new WaveChannel32(readerStream);
return inputStream;
}
Related
I have developed an Android App which runs on both a smartphone and a smartwatch in parallel. On both devices, (let's say) it reads certain sensor data, processes that data (calculate its mean), and then store that results. The watch sends this result to the phone so all storing takes place on the phone. I used buffer writer to write a number into a text file every 5 seconds.
Now after every 320 data items exchanges from watch to the phone, my app on the phone gets killed and I get "the name of the app" is unfortunately stopped as a message. I can't figure it what why they stop exactly after this time? The app running on the watch continues to work fine. However, I cannot store its data because it cannot communicate to the phone version so I get this message "the app is unfortunately stopped as a message" every time the watch sends a number to phone for storing. The app has one activity which has a service (foreground).
Could it be that there is a limit on the amount of data being shared?
The code on watch:
// Create a data map and put data in it
private void increaseCounter() {
PutDataMapRequest putDataMapReq = PutDataMapRequest.create("/count");
putDataMapReq.getDataMap().putInt(COUNT_KEY, count++); // I add current time here as well
PutDataRequest putDataReq = putDataMapReq.asPutDataRequest();
PendingResult<DataApi.DataItemResult> pendingResult =
Wearable.DataApi.putDataItem(mGoogleApiClient, putDataReq);
}
Code on phone (possible problematic area):
#Override
public void onDataChanged(DataEventBuffer dataEvents) {
for (DataEvent event : dataEvents) {
if (event.getType() == DataEvent.TYPE_CHANGED) {
// DataItem changed
DataItem item = event.getDataItem();
if (item.getUri().getPath().compareTo("/count") == 0) {
DataMap dataMap = DataMapItem.fromDataItem(item).getDataMap();
updateCount(dataMap.getInt(COUNT_KEY));
}
} else if (event.getType() == DataEvent.TYPE_DELETED) {
// DataItem deleted
}
}
}
You have to use Service with StartForeground notification to be sure app is always working.
and try to use START_STICKY flag while staring.
UPDATE
You have to dealloc memory of dataevent:
#Override
public void onDataChanged(DataEventBuffer dataEvents) {
try{
for(DataEvent dataEvent: dataEvents){
if(dataEvent.getType() != DataEvent.TYPE_CHANGED){
continue;
}
////... code
dataEvents.release();
}catch (Exception e){
Log.v("SunshineWatchFace",e.getMessage());
}
}
I'm currently working on a Petrel plug-in in which I need to run a simulation case (through a "For Loop"), I create my case runner, export it and the run it...but after finishing the simulation and closing the console, I check the CaseRunner.IsRunning property and it shows true! This cause that the results have not been loaded to the petrel system.
I tried to load the results manually after finishing the Run of my case (using caserunner and also using a batch file in my code) and I can't see any results in the programming environment.
Does anybody have a solution for this situation?
This is the related part of my code:
Case theCase = arguments.TheCase;
Case Test2 = simroots.CreateCase(theCase, "FinalCase");
CaseRunner cRunners = SimulationSystem.GetCaseRunner(Test2);
cRunners.Export();
cRunners.Run();
bool b = cRunners.IsRunning;
actually I checked when the process finishes; after "cRunners.Run" the code waits for exit the process using:
System.Diagnostics.Process[] parray = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetProcesses();
foreach (System.Diagnostics.Process pr in parray)
{
if (pr.ProcessName == "cmd")
{
pr.WaitForExit();//just wait
}
}
and when the console closes itself, i checked the cRunners.IsRunning term.
However, I'm not so expert... can you show me an example of using CaseRunnerMonitor? both definition of the derived class and its implementation.
All I need is running a simulation case n times via a for loop and
after each Run access to its provided summary results.
I tried some different scenarios to get my desired results, I put here some of them
First I create my CaseRunnerMonitor class:
public class MyMonitor : CaseRunnerMonitor
{
//…
public override void RunCompleted()
{
// define arguments
foreach (Slb.Ocean.Petrel.DomainObject.Simulation.SummaryResult sr in simroot.SummaryResults)
{
IEnumerable ….
List ….
// some codes to change the input arguments according to the current step simulation summary results
}
PetrelLogger.InfoOutputWindow("MyMonitor is completed!");
}
//…
}
And then use it:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Some codes that define some arguments…
for (int j = 0; j < 8; j++)
{
// some changes in the arguments
Case MyTest;
MyMonitor monit4 = new MyMonitor();
SimulationRoot simroot = SimulationRoot.Get(PetrelProject.PrimaryProject);
using (ITransaction trans = DataManager.NewTransaction())
{
trans.Lock(simroot);
MyTest = simroot.CreateCase(OriginalCase, MycaseNameFunc());
trans.Commit();
}
CaseRunner cRun = SimulationSystem.GetCaseRunner(MyTest);
cRun.Export();
cRun.Run(monit4);
//Wait(); //waits for current process to close
}
}
But the thing is that MyTest case results part are empty after my run is completed. in this case all the results loaded to the petrel when the 8th (last) simulation completes. If I don’t activate the Wait() function, all 8 runs are almost calling simultaneously…
I changed my scenario, my callback after each run is read the simulation results, change something and call next run so
I create my CaseRunnerMonitor class:
public class MyMonitor2 : CaseRunnerMonitor
{
//…
public override void RunCompleted()
{
// define arguments
index++;
if (index <=8)
{
foreach (Slb.Ocean.Petrel.DomainObject.Simulation.SummaryResult sr in simroot.SummaryResults)
{
IEnumerable ….
List ….
// some codes to change the input arguments according to the current step simulation summary results
}
Case MyTest;
MyMonitor monit4 = new MyMonitor();
SimulationRoot simroot = SimulationRoot.Get(PetrelProject.PrimaryProject);
using (ITransaction trans = DataManager.NewTransaction())
{
trans.Lock(simroot);
MyTest = simroot.CreateCase(OriginalCase, MycaseNameFunc());
trans.Commit();
}
CaseRunner cRun = SimulationSystem.GetCaseRunner(MyTest);
cRun.Export();
cRun.Run(monit4);
}
PetrelLogger.InfoOutputWindow("MyMonitor2 is completed!");
}
//…
}
And then use it:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Index=0;
// Some codes that define some arguments…
// some changes in the arguments
Case MyTest;
MyMonitor monit5 = new MyMonitor();
SimulationRoot simroot = SimulationRoot.Get(PetrelProject.PrimaryProject);
using (ITransaction trans = DataManager.NewTransaction())
{
trans.Lock(simroot);
MyTest = simroot.CreateCase(OriginalCase, MycaseNameFunc());
trans.Commit();
}
CaseRunner cRun = SimulationSystem.GetCaseRunner(MyTest);
cRun.Export();
cRun.Run(monit5);
}
in this situation no need to wait() function is required. But the problem is that I access to MyTest case results in one level before the current run completes. i.e, I can view the step 5 results via MyTest.Results when the run 6 is completed while step 6 results are empty despite of completion of its run.
I check the CaseRunner.IsRunning property and it shows true
This is because Caserunner.Run() is non-blocking; that is, it starts another thread to launch the run. Control flow then passes immediately to your cRunners.IsRunning check which is true as simulation is in progress.
cRunners.Run(); //non-blocking
bool b = cRunners.IsRunning;
You should look at CaseRunnerMonitor if you want a call-back when the simulation is complete.
Edit:
can you show me an example of using CaseRunnerMonitor? both definition of the derived class and its implementation.
Create your monitor class:
public class CustomCaseRunnerMonitor : CaseRunnerMonitor
{
//...
public override void RunCompleted()
{
//This is probably the callback you want
}
}
Use it:
Case myCase = WellKnownSimulators.ECLIPSE100.CreateSimulationCase(...);
CaseRunner runner = SimulationSystem.GetCaseRunner(myCase);
var myMonitor = new CustomCaseRunnerMonitor(...);
runner.Run(myMonitor);
//Your callbacks defined in your CustomCaseRunnerMonitor will now be called
See also "Running and monitoring a Simulation" in SimulationSystem API documentation.
Ah, OK. I didn't realise you were trying to load results with the CaseMonitor.
I'm afraid the short answer is "No, you can't know when Petrel has loaded results".
The long answer is Petrel will automatically load results if the option is set in the Case arguments. (Define Simulation Case -> Advance -> Automatically load results).
In API:
EclipseFormatSimulator.Arguments args = EclipseFormatSimulator.GetEclipseFormatSimulatorArguments(myCase);
EclipseFormatSimulator.Arguments.RuntimeArguments runtimeArgs = args.Runtime;
runtimeArgs.AutoLoadResults = true;
runtimeArgs.AutoLoadResultsInterval = 120; //How frequently in seconds Petrel polls sim dir.
You will have to poll SimulationRoot.SummaryResults (using the same API you are already using) after case has finished.
You should use the CaseRunnerMonitor we discussed to determine when to start doing this, rather than the System.Diagnostics.Process[] parray = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetProcesses(); code you currently have.
I'm using usbmanager class to manage USB host on my android 4.1.1 machine.
all seems to work quite well for a few hundreds of transactions until (after ~ 900 transactions) opening the device fails, returning null without exception.
Using a profiler it doesn't seem to be a matter of memory leakage.
this is how I initialize the communication from my main activity (doing this once):
public class MainTestActivity extends Activity {
private BroadcastReceiver m_UsbReceiver = null;
private PendingIntent mPermissionIntent = null;
UsbManager m_manager=null;
DeviceFactory m_factory = null;
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
setContentView(R.layout.main);
mPermissionIntent = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(this, 0, new Intent(ACTION_USB_PERMISSION), 0);
IntentFilter filter = new IntentFilter(ACTION_USB_PERMISSION);
filter.addAction(UsbManager.ACTION_USB_DEVICE_DETACHED);
m_UsbReceiver = new BroadcastReceiver() {
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
String action = intent.getAction();
if (UsbManager.ACTION_USB_DEVICE_DETACHED.equals(action)) {
UsbDevice device = (UsbDevice)intent.getParcelableExtra(UsbManager.EXTRA_DEVICE);
if (device != null) {
// call your method that cleans up and closes communication with the device
Log.v("BroadcastReceiver", "Device Detached");
}
}
}
};
registerReceiver(m_UsbReceiver, filter);
m_manager = (UsbManager) getSystemService(Context.USB_SERVICE);
m_factory = new DeviceFactory(this,mPermissionIntent);
}
and this is the code of my test:
ArrayList<DeviceInterface> devList = m_factory.getDevicesList();
if ( devList.size() > 0){
DeviceInterface devIf = devList.get(0);
UsbDeviceConnection connection;
try
{
connection = m_manager.openDevice(m_device);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return null;
}
The test will work OK for 900 to 1000 calls and after this the following call will return null (without exception):
UsbDeviceConnection connection;
try
{
connection = m_manager.openDevice(m_device);
}
You might just run out of file handles, a typical limit would be 1024 open files per process.
Try calling close() on the UsbDeviceConnection, see doc.
The UsbDeviceConnection object has allocated system ressources - e.g. a file descriptor - which will be released only on garbage collection in your code. But in this case you run out of ressources before you run out of memory - which means the garbage collector is not invoked yet.
I had opendevice fail on repeated runs on android 4.0 even though I open only once in my code. I had some exit paths that did not close the resources and I had assumed the OS would free it on process termination.
However there seems to be some issue with release of resources on process termination -I used to have issues even when I terminated and launched a fresh process.
I finally ensured release of resources on exit and made the problem go away.
I'm struggling with making a call transfer in a UMCA IVR app I've built. This is not using Lync.
Essentially, I have an established call from an outside user and as part of the IVR application, they select an option to be transferred. This transfer is to a configured outside number (ie: Our Live Operator). What I want to do is transfer the original caller to the outside number, and if a valid transfer is established, I want to terminate the original call. If the transfer isn't established, I want to send control back to the IVR application to handle this gracefully.
My problem is my EndTransferCall doesn't get hit when the transfer is established. I would have expected it to hit, set my AutoResetEvent and return a True, and then in my application I can disconnect the original call. Can somebody tell me what I'm missing here?
_call is an established AudioVideoCall. My application calls the Transfer method
private AutoResetEvent _waitForTransferComplete = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public override bool Transfer(string number, int retries = 3)
{
var success = false;
var attempt = 0;
CallTransferOptions transferOptions = new CallTransferOptions(CallTransferType.Attended);
while ((attempt < retries) && (success == false))
{
try
{
attempt++;
_call.BeginTransfer(number, transferOptions, EndTransferCall, null);
// Wait for the transfer to complete
_waitForTransferComplete.WaitOne();
success = true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
//TODO: Log that the transfer failed
//TODO: Find out what exceptions get thrown and catch the specific ones
}
}
return success;
}
private void EndTransferCall(IAsyncResult ar)
{
try
{
_call.EndTransfer(ar);
}
catch (OperationFailureException opFailEx)
{
Console.WriteLine(opFailEx.ToString());
}
catch (RealTimeException realTimeEx)
{
Console.WriteLine(realTimeEx.ToString());
}
finally
{
_waitForTransferComplete.Set();
}
}
Is the behavior the same if you don't use the _waitForTransferComplete object? You shouldn't need it - it should be fine that the method ends, the event will still be raised. If you're forcing synchronous behavoir in order to fit in with the rest of the application though, try it like this:
_call.EndTransfer(
_call.BeginTransfer (number,transferOptions,null,null)
);
I'm just wondering if the waiting like that causes a problem if running on a single thread or something...
The question pretty much sums it up. I have a WCF service, and I want to wait until it finished to do something else, but it has to be until it finishes. My code looks something like this. Thanks!
private void RequestGeoCoordinateFromAddress(string address)
{
GeocodeRequest geocodeRequest = new GeocodeRequest();
GeocodeServiceClient geocodeService = new GeocodeServiceClient("BasicHttpBinding_IGeocodeService");
geocodeService.GeocodeCompleted += new EventHandler<GeocodeCompletedEventArgs>(geocodeService_GeocodeCompleted);
// Make the geocode request
geocodeService.GeocodeAsync(geocodeRequest);
//if (geocodeResponse.Results.Length > 0)
// results = String.Format("Latitude: {0}\nLongitude: {1}",
// geocodeResponse.Results[0].Locations[0].Latitude,
// geocodeResponse.Results[0].Locations[0].Longitude);
//else
// results = "No Results Found";
// wait for the request to finish here, so I can do something else
// DoSomethingElse();
}
private void geocodeService_GeocodeCompleted(object sender, GeocodeCompletedEventArgs e)
{
bool isErrorNull = e.Error == null;
Exception error = e.Error;
try
{
double altitude = e.Result.Results[0].Locations[0].Latitude;
double longitude = e.Result.Results[0].Locations[0].Longitude;
SetMapLocation(new GeoCoordinate(altitude, longitude));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// TODO: Remove reason later
MessageBox.Show("Unable to find address. Reason: " + ex.Message);
}
}
There is a pattern, supported by WCF, for a call to have an asynchronous begin call, and a corresponding end call.
In this case, the asynchronous methods would be in the client's interface as so:
[ServiceContract]
interface GeocodeService
{
// Synchronous Operations
[OperationContract(AsyncPattern = false, Action="tempuri://Geocode", ReplyAction="GeocodeReply")]
GeocodeResults Geocode(GeocodeRequestType geocodeRequest);
// Asynchronous operations
[OperationContract(AsyncPattern = true, Action="tempuri://Geocode", ReplyAction="GeocodeReply")]
IAsyncResult BeginGeocode(GeocodeRequestType geocodeRequest, object asyncState);
GeocodeResults EndGeocode(IAsyncResult result);
}
If you generate the client interface using svcutil with the asynchronous calls option, you will get all of this automatically. You can also hand-create the client interface if you aren't using automatically generating the client proxies.
The End call would block until the call is complete.
IAsyncResult asyncResult = geocodeService.BeginGeocode(geocodeRequest, null);
//
// Do something else with your CPU cycles here, if you want to
//
var geocodeResponse = geocodeService.EndGeocode(asyncResult);
I don't know what you've done with your interface declarations to get the GeocodeAsync function, but if you can wrangle it back into this pattern your job would be easier.
You could use a ManualResetEvent:
private ManualResetEvent _wait = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private void RequestGeoCoordinateFromAddress(string address)
{
...
_wait = new ManualResetEvent(false);
geocodeService.GeocodeAsync(geocodeRequest);
// wait for maximum 2 minutes
_wait.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(2));
// at that point the web service returned
}
private void geocodeService_GeocodeCompleted(object sender, GeocodeCompletedEventArgs e)
{
...
_wait.Set();
}
Obviously doing this makes absolutely no sense, so the question here is: why do you need to do this? Why using async call if you are going to block the main thread? Why not use a direct call instead?
Generally when using async web service calls you shouldn't block the main thread but do all the work of handling the results in the async callback. Depending of the type of application (WinForms, WPF) you shouldn't forget that GUI controls can only be updated on the main thread so if you intend to modify the GUI in the callback you should use the appropriate technique (InvokeRequired, ...).
Don't use this code with Silverlight:
private ManualResetEvent _wait = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private void RequestGeoCoordinateFromAddress(string address)
{
...
_wait = new ManualResetEvent(false);
geocodeService.GeocodeAsync(geocodeRequest);
// wait for maximum 2 minutes
_wait.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(2));
// at that point the web service returned
}
private void geocodeService_GeocodeCompleted(object sender, GeocodeCompletedEventArgs e)
{
...
_wait.Set();
}
When we call _wait.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(2)), we are blocking the UI thread, which means the service call never takes place. In the background, the call to geocodeService.GeocodeAsync is actually placed in a message queue, and will only be actioned when the thread is not executing user code. If we block the thread, the service call never takes place.
Synchronous Web Service Calls with Silverlight: Dispelling the async-only myth
The Visual Studio 11 Beta inludes C# 5 with async-await.
See Async CTP - How can I use async/await to call a wcf service?
It makes it possible to write async clients in a 'synchronous style'.
I saw one guy did use ManualReset and waitAll, but he had to wrap all code inside of ThreadPool..
It is very bad idea...thought it works