|
Are you using the FileSystemWatcher to catch the fact that a file has been created? If you are, you should be aware that it's not 100% effective. It has some gaping deficiencies.
|
|
|
|
|
I am indeed using FileSystemWatcher to monitor the folder but I admit I was unaware of any deficiencies in it. Can you explain a little what they are please?
|
|
|
|
|
It will sometimes send a notification that a file was created before the file has finished being written. That is probably a problem more often with larger files. Like a person said below, the solution is to wait a few milliseconds if the file is not yet available. One way to do this would be to use a try/catch to check if you were able to gain a write lock on the file. If that fails, wait a few milliseconds and try again.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd just like to add that you should acquire a full lock, meaning you don't want to share the file for reading nor for writing (nor for deletion). That way, you'll be sure that no other handles to the file are open before acquiring the lock.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi.
Sometimes it happens that your thread which is responsible for creating XML files tries to read the arrived text file when it's not completely free (some service is still using it).
Try to wait for some milliseconds before attempting to open the text file like this:
Thread.Sleep(100);
I hope this will work.
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the previous answers, I would like to suggest you on increasing the InternalBufferSize property of your file system watcher object to a bigger value.
It might help when a large number of files are being created at the same time. The lesser the value of the InternalBufferSize, the more are the chances of file changes / creations going unnoticed by the watcher.
Hope this helps.
ramzg
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Thanks very much for the suggestions so far. Will implement those changes now, hopefully that will sort this last bug out.
Much obliged to you all,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
as others already explained, FSW has a limited buffer, so for a very active folder you might miss some events, however that seldom is the problem; the actual problem typically is FSW gets triggered by the beginning of some action (such as file creation), whereas your app typically is interested in the end of the action (file created and available).
My solution (applies only if the producer can be slightly changed) is by using a sentinel file: have the producer create and write the file of interest first, then emit a small file that signals the former has been created and written; and now make the FSW watch out for that sentinel file only; it being small causes start and end creation to coincide, so there is no need to wait or to retry. And you could store the data file's name inside the sentinel file, to remove all uncertainty.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.4
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Luc for being lazy but would this still be an issue when streaming data in a separate thread?
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Rob, I have no idea what you are asking here.
FWIW: the FSW events get handled in a ThreadPool thread. They fire upon filesystem events such as create file, write to file, delete file, which all indicate the start of an action. There is no event for flushing or closing a file.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.4 modified on Friday, June 10, 2011 8:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I was just thinking one of the main reasons the FSW InternalBuffer would overflow is because the code block within the subscribing method is taking time (ie reading file) and so other events are backing up in the buffer. And maybe a better way would be to thread the reading of the file into a separate thread to help avoid the InternalBuffer overflowing.
I guess it still isn't a solution to the problem anyway, just a way to help minimise it.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I see, yes when a consumer temporarily can not keep up with a producer, you would need more buffering, or split the consumption effort in a real-time task and a delayed task (a queue could be helpful here).
Under the same conditions, and assuming new files (OnCreate) are of interest, it might be wise not to use a FSW at all, and to scan the folder yourself (e.g.with Directory.GetFiles or the newer Directory.EnumerateFiles) especially if the consumer is to also delete the files once processed.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.4
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea. I suppose whatever is writing the file could also write it to a different folder and then perform a move operation to move it to the monitored folder once the file is fully written.
|
|
|
|
|
That would work too, however I'm not fond of moving or renaming files (unless that is exactly what is wanted) as there are too many side-effects.
One example is MS Word editing a doc file on the desktop; it renames the old file resulting in a weird filename on the desktop, and creates a new one, in an "arbitrary" location, also on the desktop of course; when done, the old is removed, the new one renamed to its original name, not its original location.
And then there is the single responsibility idea, see SOLID. One file holding content, one file signaling new information!
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.4
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I think the SRP refers more to the functionality than the data being operated on (the files, in this case). You could have one bit of functionality that creates the file, then another to move the file (or rename it).
Now that I think about it, I'd probably go with the rename option (from a practical perspective). Less clutter IMO (no need to keep track of a second folder, and no extra file to clean up).
|
|
|
|
|
With renaming, you're potentially in for a surprise. You have to close the file before you can rename it, and in that short period of time the file could be opened by any of those utterly helpful little programs (indexers, virus scanners, etc) trying to inspect or process the new information, and thus preventing you from renaming the file. So you end up creating the same wait-and-retry loop you need to get reasonable chance of deleting a newly created file; and this logic needs to be added to the producer, who wouldn't really care much. That is why I prefer the sentinel file scheme.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.4
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys
i wanna get url from navigators like ie, firefox nd opera. but when i run the navigator after my application, i get this exception "CallbackOnCollectedDelegate" xD
here's my code
[DllImport("USER32.DLL", EntryPoint = "DdeClientTransaction",
CharSet = CharSet.Unicode, ExactSpelling = true,
CallingConvention = CallingConvention.StdCall)]
private static extern IntPtr DdeClientTransaction(byte[] pData, uint cbData,
IntPtr hConv, IntPtr hszItem, ClipboardFormat wFmt, XTYP wType, uint dwTimeout, ref uint pdwResult);
public static byte[] Request(string item, ClipboardFormat wFormat)
{
try
{
if (hConv == IntPtr.Zero)
return null;
IntPtr hszItem = DdeCreateStringHandle(DDEid, item, CP_UNICODE);
if ((hszItem == IntPtr.Zero) && (item.Length != 0))
return null;
uint res = 0;
IntPtr data = DdeClientTransaction(null, 0, hConv, hszItem, wFormat, XTYP.REQUEST, timeout, ref res);
if (hszItem != IntPtr.Zero)
DdeFreeStringHandle(DDEid, hszItem);
if (data != IntPtr.Zero)
{
uint len = DdeGetData(data, null, 0, 0);
byte[] buffer = new byte[len];
DdeGetData(data, buffer, len, 0);
return buffer;
}
}
catch (NullReferenceException r)
{ System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(r.Message); }
in the main i call this method to get url like this
NavUrl _navigation = new NavUrl();
IntPtr hffconv = _navigation.Connect("IExplore", "WWW_GetWindowInfo", ref path);
if (hffconv != IntPtr.Zero)
{
byte[] wwwFF = _navigation.Request("0xFFFFFFFF", NavUrl.ClipboardFormat.TEXT);
if (wwwFF != null)
{
urls = System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.UTF7.GetString(wwwFF);
_navigation.Disconnect();
lastIe = urls;
indexTitle = urls.IndexOf("\",\"");
indexTitleEnd = urls.IndexOf("\"", indexTitle + 3);
thank u
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, I need to format string and having some problems.
when user enter into a textbox i.e "12345678". I need to format
this input into this. "12 345 678". I am doing this way but not working
string p = TextBox.Text.Trim();
string.Format("{0},{1},{2}", p.Substring(0,2), p.Substring(2,4), p.Substring(5,7));
|
|
|
|
|
You should probably remove the comma's from your Format string. The rest is just about adding up your substring index and length values correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
You should replace commas to spaces and String.Format is uppercase in the S
|
|
|
|
|
mabrahao wrote: String.Format is uppercase in the S
Actually, both string and String will work.
|
|
|
|
|
Try this:
string p = TextBox.Text.Trim();
p = string.Format("{0} {1} {2}", p.Substring(0, 2), p.Substring(2, 3), p.Substring(5, 3));
MessageBox.Show(p);
Here is what was wrong with your code:
- Your sample output contains spaces, but your format strong contains commas.
- string.Format returns the modified string, yet you were not assigning the return value to anything.
- string.Substring has 2 parameters. The second prameter is the string length, not a second index. So where you used 4 and 7, you should have used 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply. it is working for me.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing you should know - the second parameter in Substring is not the position to end on, it's the length of the substring to extract. It goes Substring(index, length);
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
