Important: Please read the Qt Code of Conduct -

Do you think PROTECTED QThread::sleep() method should be made PUBLIC ?

  • To create a new thread, it is more and more advocated not to subclass QThread but instead to create a Worker class and then to move the worker object to the new thread by using moveToThread().
    I prefer this method too. It makes the code much more clear and logic. However there is a drawback. We can’t use static QThread::sleep() method anymore because this method is protected.
    There are always workarounds like the one I propose below but I’d like to know if you think as I do that Qt should now consider making this static method PUBLIC so that we can simply sleep like that in the worker code ? :

    The workaround below consists in subclassing QThread to MThread to make sleep() public and then to sleep by casting currentThread() to MThread before calling MThread public sleep().

    class MThread : public QThread {
    MThread(QObject *parent) : QThread(parent) {}
    static void sleep(unsigned long secs) { QThread::sleep(secs);}

    class Worker : public QObject {
    public :
    Q_INVOKABLE void task1() {
    qDebug() << "Worker::task1() - begin - Thread=" << QThread::currentThreadId();
    static_cast<MThread *>(QThread::currentThread())->sleep(5);
    qDebug() << "Worker::task1() - end - Thread=" << QThread::currentThreadId();

    int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
    QApplication app(argc, argv);
    qDebug() << "main() - ThreadId =" << QThread::currentThreadId();
    Worker *worker = new Worker;
    QThread *thread = new QThread;
    QMetaObject::invokeMethod(worker, "task1");

    Also, if you can think about a more simple workaround, please let me know.

    Gilles, Paris

  • Moderators

    sleep() is made public in Qt 5: -- That doesn't help users of Qt 4.8, unfortunately.

    If your code involves a repeating loop, with sleeping between each iteration, you can try using QTimer to call the function at regular intervals

  • Thanks for the info. That's good news.

Log in to reply