I need to have a specific process(method) run once a day at a given time and was wondering if this can be done using the timer control.
As has been stated, if your process isn't already running, then use Task Scheduler to handle this for you.
However, if you have some background service or something already running, then use a timer, and have it check the system time. Timers are not necessarily accurate, and after a day's worth of running, I would expect them to be way off.
Set up a timer with an interval of 3000ms or so, and when that interval hits, then check the system time to see if it is time for your method to run.
You should create a program that does that process, then exits.
You should then schedule the program using Windows Task Scheduler.
Related
Is there a way to listen or wait for a specific time (e.g. 11:30 am) every day. The only way I know how is to set a timer that checks for the current time every 60 seconds which I have actually implemented using a backgroundworker. But is there a way to just wait and listen for the specified time (similar to monitoring for directory changes) and then take some action?
Thanks in advance.
Typically, rather than having a program resident in memory waiting, you would setup a Scheduled Task for this (or a cron job on linux). The scheduled task will run the program at the appropriate time. The program can still check (validate) the expected time if needed, but it shouldn't just always sit in the background using up resources if it's only going to run once per day.
The scheduled task is also better because it will recover automatically from computer reboots, crashes, etc. If something happens that interrupts your program's normal running, the scheduled task will still be able to run.
This is especially important in the .Net world, because .Net requires you to be very careful writing long-lived programs to avoid address space fragmentation. The .Net garbage collector is good at freeing up and returning old memory to the operating system, but over time your program's virtual address space can become fragmented and eventually you will not be able to allocate new memory any longer.
Even if this is part of a larger program, where there are also other things happening based on user interactions, it's still a good idea to split this off into a separate process.
I've started using a database at work that is based off SQL and Unix.
I am surprised to learn, that if someone requests for a change to be made to their details at around 5PM or a certain date, then the person who is allocated the incident then has to WAIT until 5pm and make the changes manually.
I'm surprised a button that says 'Apply changes later' does not exist, there is only a 'Save' button.
I have seen complicated solutions using Java on stackoverflow, but I am not familiar with UNIX or SQL, and googling brings no results.
Would it be a simple fix?
It wouldn't have to account for any time differences, and I'm assuming would just work off System clock; and I know Java has a calendar function that I assume works off the PC clock.
Java
Java does indeed have a sophisticated facility for scheduling a future task to be executed. See the ScheduledExecutorService class.
Rather than specify a date-time, you pass the schedule method a number of nanoseconds, or milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, or hours, or days. You also pass a TimeUnit enum instance to indicate which granularity.
And, yes, Java depends on the host operating system for its clock to track the date-time.
Task Master
I suggest using your database to track the jobs to be run, in conjunction with Java. If using only Java, the scheduled jobs would exist only in memory and would disappear if the Java app exits or crashes.
Instead, the Java app on launch should check the database for any pending jobs, and schedule them with an executor. Each job on completion should mark the database "task master" table row as finished.
I am wondering about the Timer component and what, if any, negative effects occur because of its use or multiple instances of its use. In practice, should there be a limit as to how many timers one should use in a project at one time?
Well, everything is relative but a System.Windows.Forms.Timer is a pretty expensive object. It works by creating a hidden window, required to make the underlying winapi SetTimer() function work. This window is not shared, every timer object gets its own window. A window is in general one of the more expensive operating system objects.
So a very hard upper limit is that you can never have more than 10,000 enabled timers. Windows refuses to allow an app to create that many windows. You should stay considerably south of that limitation, given that all of the windows of all of the processes that run in one desktop session need to share a common heap. Or in other words, creating a lot of windows but staying below the 10,000 quota can negatively impact other processes, it can make them fail when the heap is exhausted.
I'd say a reasonable upper limit hovers around 100. That's a large number of moving parts to keep track of in general, assuming that all of these timers have different Tick event handlers. If they don't then you should tackle this a different way, you only ever need one Timer to measure an arbitrary number of intervals. Roughly the same way you keep appointments with single watch on your wrist. You do so by storing the due times in a SortedList and start the timer only for the first one that's due. When it ticks, work off the entries in the list that have the expired due time and repeat. When you add or remove a due time, stop the timer and restart it when there's a new first due time.
I am assuming you mean the winforms timer object So,
From the Docs:
A Timer is used to raise an event at user-defined intervals. This
Windows timer is designed for a single-threaded environment where UI
threads are used to perform processing. It requires that the user code
have a UI message pump available and always operate from the same
thread, or marshal the call onto another thread.
When you use this
timer, use the Tick event to perform a polling operation or to display
a splash screen for a specified period of time. Whenever the Enabled
property is set to true and the Interval property is greater than
zero, the Tick event is raised at intervals based on the Interval
property setting.
So reading that line by line if you start to pack your application with timers, you are quickly going to be racing the interval events for UI render time.
For instance: You have a clock application that uses a timer to run the clock. At each 1 second interval you have the application render the hands.
In this application you also let the user define as many 'alarms' as they want. Each one creating a new timer that will trigger at set times. These alarms are also allowed to be cyclical. That is to say you allow the user to set an 'alarm' that goes off every x seconds.
Now suppose the user has a long running task (access DB, network resource, calculate PI to 1500 chars etc) that happens on a cyclical alarm. Now suppose the user has 10 long running tasks that need to happen in order and need to happen at 3 4 and 5 second intervals.
The behavior of these timers would not be adequate for this application because the following would happen:
The clock would stop rendering during the execution of the 'alarms'
The alarms may run over one another and thus they would queue up but not happen when they were supposed to happen, because the UI thread is processing all messages synchronously.
you end up with an unresponsive UI that does not do what you want.
So to answer as best I can your actual question; there does not necessarily need to be a limit to the amount of timers, just the interval between when they will fire in conjunction with the consideration of the time it will take to process your event handler.
If you are using the timers to fire separate processing threads that are going to come back to the UI thread eventually and make changes, then no there does not feasibly need to be a limit until you run into the upper end of the performance of your target machine. That is to say at some point the amount of timers could be so large that you are calling more timer events and clogging the message queue to the point that the form rendering becomes affected.
So in short:
Negative effects:
Timers run in the UI thread so they are blocking
they can have unexpected behaviors if your interval is shorter than the amount of time it takes to process your event handler.
In practice the only time you should need to limit your usage of timers, like any component that the user does not control, is if they begin to affect the user experience.
I hope that reads a lot less 'ramble-y' than it felt when I was writing it.
In a fairly simple application that I am making, I use many NSTimers, one which runs at a rate of .01 seconds that I use to change the position of multiple images. This causes major lag. How can I fix this? Please explain in detail, as I am fairly new to app dev.
From the NSTimer Docs (emphasis: mine):
A timer is not a real-time mechanism; it fires only when one of the
run loop modes to which the timer has been added is running and able
to check if the timer’s firing time has passed. Because of the various
input sources a typical run loop manages, the effective resolution of
the time interval for a timer is limited to on the order of 50-100
milliseconds. If a timer’s firing time occurs during a long callout or
while the run loop is in a mode that is not monitoring the timer, the
timer does not fire until the next time the run loop checks the timer.
Therefore, the actual time at which the timer fires potentially can be
a significant period of time after the scheduled firing time.
If you want to work at the display frequency, see CADisplayLink.
However, you should first understand where you program spends its time now to understand what makes it slow (profiler).
Currently I have an application that runs at startup when a user log's in to the account (administrative), as well as something under HKLM...\Run which is also executed - but I need to run something once and BEFORE both these things are executed.
My solution was to use HKLM...\RunOnce which is executed before the HKLM...\Run but the task can take 30-45 seconds which gives enough time for the user Startup to be executed and launch the application prematurely.
I thought of maybe including a SLEEP but RunOnce doesn't block the user account load... Then I considered the group policies but they do not have a RunOnce equivalent that I can use... Also I am not sure if Group Policy is run at the right time (never used it before).
Is there anyway to make my RunOnce delay the account startup of my application, or a better place where I can execute it before both HKLM...\Run and user Startup? Or any recommended alternatives?
Any ideas or help would be much appreciated...
Thanks,
Do you actually need to delay user login or you just need to delay the secondary applications? Assuming the latter you can use a Mutex to synchronize the separate processes. The first can declare and acquire a named mutex. The later processes can block wait on the mutex.