I have a function that has inside thread that do something
public static void animate(int column,Image image)
{
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
/* Code */
repaint();
Thread.sleep(500);
repaint();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
}).start();
}
The animation function I summon in the updateBoard function and after this do i++.
I want to make the function animate not continue to I++ until the thread end
Inside animate fucntion i used repaint() function from swing, When i try to use .join() its block repaint() thread.
public static void updateBoard(int column, Image image) {
int i = 0;
animate(column,image);
i++;
}
Like this:
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){...});
t.start();
t.join();
However, this is kind of pointless. If you are going to start a thread and immediately block waiting for it to finish you are NOT going to get any parallelism. You may as well just call the Runnable::run method in the current thread ... and avoid the (not insignificant!) overhead of creating / starting a thread.
You have a already existing thread executing updateBoard() method. Let this thread be T1.
You invoke animate() and create another thread, let this thread be T2. Now as per your question, you want to have T1 not run further until T2 completes the execution.
Thread.java defines a method join(), it allows one thread to wait for the completion of another. In your code it can be done like this.
static Thread animationThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
/* Code */
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {}
}
});
public static void updateBoard(int column, Image image) {
int i = 0;
animate(column,image);
animationThread.join(); // this will make the thread executing updateBoard to wait until the completion of animationThread.
i++;
}
public static void animate(int column,Image image){
animationThread .start();
}
But now every thing runs one after the other, there is no use of having two threads in this case. This is similar to
public static void updateBoard(int column, Image image) {
int i = 0;
animate(column,image);
i++;
}
public static void animate(int column,Image image){
try {
/* Code */
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {}
}
In this case also until unless animate method completes (without 2nd thread), i++ will not be executed. Hence for the use case in your question having a separate thread for animate does not make sense, it only adds to the overhead of creating a separate thread and context switching. Although having a separate thread for animation seems a good idea but for that you got to restructure the program you have so as the logic is based on parallel execution so as having multiple threads makes sense.
Related
I have a thread in my android app, this thread has to sleep for a certain time in order to waiting some results which will be set by the runOnUiThread thread, the problem is when i tried to make the thread sleeps for a portion of time the runOnUiThread sleeps with it too and so it doesn't perform any processing till the other thread wakes up although runOnUiThread is exists in another separated thread.
that's my code:
The thread that contains the runOnUiThread :
Thread xbmc = new Thread (){
#Override
public void run(){
System.out.println("one");// working perfectly
runOnUiThread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println("two");// not work till the other thread wakes up
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
});
}
};
xbmc.start();
And this is the Thread that I make sleeps:
display = false;
Thread wait = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
int d = 0;
while (d != 20) {
if (wake_up) {
display = true;
break;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
d++;
}
if (!display) {
display = true;
}
}
});
wait.start();
while(!display){}// infinite loop waits for the thread to finish it's looks or something breaks it, and there is no something can break it but the `runOnUiThread` processing results
I think you're missunderstanding some basic concepts about Threads. Your threads, as you defined them, seem (moreless) ok, they are not blocking your UI as they're running in the background. What is blocking your UI is the while (!display) {} loop.
You're waiting here until your thread modifies that value, which I guess is not what you're trying to achieve. You'd need to define some other way of doing this, like for example, append the while (!display) content code block to the Thread.
This question already has answers here:
How to properly stop the Thread in Java?
(9 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am having a problem trying to stop a thread instantly after a certain amount of time has elapsed, because thread.stop and similar others have been depreciated.
The thread that I am trying to stop uses my mouse and I need to stop it so that I can use my mouse in other ways.
What I was thinking is the code below, which was just to make another thread to watch how long the main thread has been running and if it is alive, stop it, but I can't accomplish this.
public void threadRun(int a) {
Thread mainThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// does things with mouse which may need to be ended while they
// are in action
}
});
Thread watchThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
if (timeFromMark(mark) > a) {
if (mainThread.isAlive()) {
// How can I stop the mainThread?
}
}
}
});
}
You need to define a class for your second thread that extends runnable and pass the first thread as an argument.
Then you can stop the first thread.
But instead of doing this manually, have a look at the Java ThreadPoolExecuter and its awaitTermination(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) method. (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ThreadPoolExecutor.html )
Will save a lot of work.
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
try {
System.out.println("doing stuff");
Thread.sleep(10000);
System.out.println("finished");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted before finished!");
}
}
};
executor.execute(r);
executor.shutdown();
try {
executor.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
executor.shutdownNow();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//
}
System.out.println("Thread worker forced down. Continue with Application...");
Produces:
doing stuff
Interrupted before finished!
Thread worker forced down. Continue with Application...
Last two messages are nearly equal in terms of time and may change positions (its two different threads, continuing)
Java has deprecated methods for explicitly killing another thread (like Thread.stop / Thread.destroy). The right way is to make sure the operations on the other thread can handle being told to stop (for example, they expect an InterruptedException, which means you can call Thread.interrupt() in order to stop it).
Taken from How do I kill a thread from another thread in Java?
Killing/stopping threads is a bad idea. That's why they deprecated those methods. It's better to ask the thread to stop. E.g., something like the example below. (But note: if "do_something()" takes a long time, then you might want to use an interrupt to abort whatever it is.)
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
public class Stoppable {
private AtomicBoolean timeToDie = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private Thread thread;
public void start() {
if (thread != null) {
throw new IllegalStateException("already running");
}
thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (!timeToDie.get()) {
// do_something();
}
}
});
thread.start();
}
public void stop() throws InterruptedException {
timeToDie.set(true);
thread.join();
thread = null;
}
}
I want to pause and start thread untill variable standby.
But wait() and notify() is not work for me.
Is this a collect way to pause thread?
private boolean _threadIsWaiting = true;
private Object _specialObjectFromHttp;
public void methodToUse() {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
getParamsFromHttp();
while (_threadIsWaiting) {
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
convertObject(_specialObjectFromHttp);
)};
}
// Callback method (Thread wait for this.)
private void getParamsFromHttpCallBack(Object result) {
_specialObjectFromHttp = result;
_threadIsWaiting = false;
}
You could use an object to wait on, and call notify on it. I believe that to be the better approach (Actually, it is almost always better to utilize such a mechanism instead of sleeping and bool checking).
private Object _specialObjectFromHttp;
public void methodToUse() {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
getParamsFromHttp();
_specialObjectFromHttp.wait();
)};
}
// Callback method (Thread wait for this.)
private void getParamsFromHttpCallBack(Object result) {
_specialObjectFromHttp = result;
_specialObjectFromHttp.notifyAll();
}
In this case it seems plausible to just use the object that is being used in that control flow anyways, but you could also just add another object that has no purpose other than being waited for.
You could use a SynchronousQueue this will block until the information you need is provided. So in one thread call take, this will wait for a put on a different thread.
Both methods are blocking and no manual syncing is needed.
I'm trying to understand how threads work, and I wrote a simple example where I want to create and start a new thread, the thread, display the numbers from 1 to 1000 in the main thread, resume the secondary thread, and display the numbers from 1 to 1000 in the secondary thread. When I leave out the Thread.wait()/Thread.notify() it behaves as expected, both threads display a few numbers at a time. When I add those functions in, for some reason the main thread's numbers are printed second instead of first. What am I doing wrong?
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
synchronized(t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}
You misunderstand how wait/notify works. wait does not block the thread on which it is called; it blocks the current thread until notify is called on the same object (so if you have threads A and B and, while in thread A, called B.wait(), this will stop thread A and not thread B - for as long as B.notify() is not called).
So, in your specific example, if you want main thread to execute first, you need to put wait() inside the secondary thread. Like this:
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}
However, even this code may not work like you want. In a scenario where the main thread gets to the notify() part before the secondary thread had a chance to get to the wait() part (unlikely in your case, but still possible - you can observe it if you put Thread.sleep at the beginning of the secondary thread), the secondary thread will never be waken up. Therefore, the safest method would be something similar to this:
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
notify();
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
synchronized (t) {
t.start();
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}
In this example the output is completely deterministic. Here's what happens:
Main thread creates a new t object.
Main thread gets a lock on the t monitor.
Main thread starts the t thread.
(these can happen in any order)
Secondary thread starts, but since main thread still owns the t monitor, the secondary thread cannot proceed and must wait (because its first statement is synchronized (this), not because it happens to be the t object - all the locks, notifies and waits could as well be done on an object completely unrelated to any of the 2 threads with the same result.
Primary thread continues, gets to the t.wait() part and suspends its execution, releasing the t monitor that it synchronized on.
Secondary thread gains ownership of t monitor.
Secondary thread calls t.notify(), waking the main thread. The main thread cannot continue just yet though, since the secondary thread still holds ownership of the t monitor.
Secondary thread calls t.wait(), suspends its execution and releases the t monitor.
Primary thread can finally continue, since the t monitor is now available.
Primary thread gains ownership of the t monitor but releases it right away.
Primary thread does its number counting thing.
Primary thread again gains ownership of the t monitor.
Primary thread calls t.notify(), waking the secondary thread. The secondary thread cannot continue just yet, because the primary thread still holds the t monitor.
Primary thread releases the t monitor and terminates.
Secondary thread gains ownership of the t monitor, but releases it right away.
Secondary thread does its number counting thing and then terminates.
The entire application terminates.
As you can see, even in such a deceptively simple scenario there is a lot going on.
You are lucky that your program terminates at all.
When you call t.wait() your main threads stops and waits indefinitely on a notification.
It never gets it, but I believe is awaken by spurious wakeup when the secondary thread finishes. (Read here on what a spurious wakeup is).
ExampleThread doesn't wait() or notify(), and isn't synchronized on anything. So it will run whenever it can without any coordination with other threads.
The main thread is waiting for a notification which never comes (this notification should be sent by another thread). My guess is that when the ExampleThread dies, the main thread is woken "spuriously," and completes.
The thread that should wait for another to complete must perform the call to wait() inside a loop that checks for a condition:
class ExampleThread extends Thread {
private boolean ready = false;
synchronized void ready() {
ready = true;
notifyAll();
}
#Override
public void run() {
/* Wait to for readiness to be signaled. */
synchronized (this) {
while (!ready)
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
return; /* Interruption means abort. */
}
}
/* Now do your work. */
...
Then in your main thread:
ExampleThread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
/* Do your work. */
...
/* Then signal the other thread. */
t.ready();
Is there a way to wait for all Runnables submitted to the SWT UI Thread via asyncExec(...) to finish?
Background:
I have a long-running operation, which among other things is triggering events that in turn submit Runnables to the SWT UI thread via the asyncExec(...) instance method of Display.
The progress of the long-running operation is shown in a ProgressMonitorDialog, and I would like to close the dialog only after the UI thread has finished executing the Runnables.
Changing the calls from asyncExec(...) to syncExec(...) is not an option, as the latter is not desired when the events are triggered from other contexts.
org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch() will process an event from the event queue and return false if there are no more events to process. But you probably don't want to use this as it processes an event.
asyncExec(*) is a FIFO queue (although OS graphics events supersede the asyncExecs), so you could do most of your long-running op processing and then place a final asyncExec in the queue:
final boolean[] done = new boolean[1];
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
done[0] = true;
}
};
// now wait for the event somehow. The brute force method:
while (!done[0]) {
Thread.sleep(200);
}
In theory, all of the other asyncExecs spawned from your long running op will be finished by the time you get to the last one.
EDIT: potential other option
Create your own org.eclipse.core.runtime.jobs.Job and then join() it at the end:
public static class RefCountJob extends Job {
public RefCountJob() {
super("REF_COUNT");
}
int count = 0;
public void increment() {
count++;
}
public void decrement() {
count--;
}
#Override
protected IStatus run(IProgressMonitor monitor) {
monitor.beginTask("WAITING", IProgressMonitor.UNKNOWN);
while (count > 0) {
Thread.sleep(200);
monitor.worked(1);
}
monitor.done();
return Status.OK_STATUS;
}
}
To use it, increment() it every time you are going to fire off events, and have them decrement it when they're done (You have to make sure they decrement it no matter what exception is thrown :-)
RefCountJob ref = new RefCountJob();
// ... do stuff, everybody increments and decrements ref
ref.increment();
// ... do more stuff
ref.increment();
// at the end of your long-running job
ref.schedule();
ref.join();
Thanks, I ended up with the following. I think it is a pretty clean solution. By the way I would upvote your answer if I had enough reputation for that :)
public class SWTThreadingUtils
{
public static void waitForAsyncExecsToFinish(Display display)
{
Object waitObj = new Object();
display.asyncExec(new DummyRunnable(waitObj));
synchronized (waitObj)
{
try {
waitObj.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
private static class DummyRunnable implements Runnable
{
private Object waitObj;
public DummyRunnable(Object waitObj)
{
this.waitObj = waitObj;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
synchronized (waitObj)
{
waitObj.notify();
}
}
}
}