We Keep Coding

Java : know how much bytes were read by ImageIO.read() (and maybe other similar methods)

i am making a java program that reads data from a binary stream (using a DataInputStream).
Sometimes during this process i need to read a data chunk, however the method (which i cannot modify) that reads it will stop before reaching the end of the chunk (it is the normal behavior, apparently it just doesn't need the last bytes, but i can't do anything about the fact that they are there). This is not a problem in itself because i know exactly how long the chunk is, i.e. i know how many bytes there are in the chunk so i can skip bytes (with the skipBytes(int) method) until the end of the chunk ; the problem is : i don't actually know how many bytes the method actually read (or left), so i don't know how many bytes i need to skip to reach the end of the chunk.
Is there any way to :
know how many bytes were read in a stream since a certain point in time ?
know how many bytes were read in a stream since it was ?
any other way i could know how many bytes my data-chunk-reading method just read (since it won't directly tell me) ?
Just in case, i made a small diagram
Thanks in advance

ImageInputStream can do what you want. It implements DataInput and it has most of the methods of InputStream. And it has getStreamPosition, seek and skipBytes methods.
However, as you correctly point out, ImageIO.read(ImageInputStream) would close the stream, preventing you from reading more than one image.
The solution is to avoid using ImageIO.read, and instead obtain an ImageReader explicitly, using ImageIO.getImageReaders. Then you can invoke an ImageReader’s read method, which does not close the stream.
Here’s how I implemented it:
public void readImages(InputStream source,
Consumer<? super BufferedImage> imageHandler)
throws IOException {
// Every image is at a byte index which is a multiple of this number.
int boundary = 5000;
try (ImageInputStream stream = ImageIO.createImageInputStream(source)) {
while (true) {
long pos = stream.getStreamPosition();
Iterator<ImageReader> readers = ImageIO.getImageReaders(stream);
if (!readers.hasNext()) {
break;
}
ImageReader reader = readers.next();
reader.setInput(stream);
BufferedImage image = reader.read(0);
imageHandler.accept(image);
pos = stream.getStreamPosition();
long bytesToSkip = boundary - (pos % boundary);
if (bytesToSkip < boundary) {
stream.skipBytes(bytesToSkip);
}
}
}
}
And here’s how I tested it:
try (InputStream source = new BufferedInputStream(
Files.newInputStream(Path.of(filename)))) {
reader.readImages(source, img -> EventQueue.invokeLater(() -> {
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, new ImageIcon(img));
}));
}

All the buffered read methods return the actual number of bytes read.
Quoting documentation for InputStream#read(byte[] b):
Returns:
the total number of bytes read into the buffer, or -1 if there is no more data because the end of the stream has been reached.

How do I decide how many bytes to read from an inputstream?

I am trying to read from an InputStream. I wrote below code
byte[] bytes = new byte[1024 * 32];
while (bufferedInStream.read(bytes) != -1) {
bufferedOutStream.write(bytes);
}
What I don't understand is how many bytes I should read in an iteration? The stream contains a file saved on the disk.
I read here but I did not understand the post really.

Say you had a flow of water from a pipe into a bath. You then used a bucket to get water from the bath and carry to say to your garden to water the lawn. The bath is the buffer. When you are walking across the lawn the buffer is filling up so when you return there is a bucket ful for you to take again.
If the bath is tiny then it could overflow while you are walking with the bucket and so you will lose water. If you have a massive bath then it is unlikely to overflow. so a larger buffer is more convenient. but of course a larger bath costs more money and takes up more space.
A buffer in your program takes up memory space. And you don't want to take up all your available memory for your buffer just because it is convenient.
Generally in your read function you can specify how many bytes to read. so even if you have a small buffer you could do this (pseudocode):
const int bufsize = 50;
buf[bufsize];
unsigned read;
while ((read = is.read(buf, bufsize)) != NULL) {
// do something with data - up to read bytes
}
In above code bufzise is MAXIMUM data to read into the buffer.
If your read function does not allow you to specify a maximum number of bytes to read then you need to supply a buffer large enough to receive the largest possible read amount.
So the optimal buffer size is application specific. Only the application developer will know the characteristics of the data. Eg how fast is the flow of water into the bath. What bath size can you afford (embedded apps), how quickly can you carry bucket from bath across garden and back again.

It is depend on available memory, size of file and other stuff. You better make some measurement.
PS: You code is wrong. bufferedInStream.read(bytes) may not fill all buffer, but only part of it. This method return actual amount of bytes as result.
byte[] bytes = new byte[1024 * 32];
int size;
while ((size = bufferedInStream.read(bytes)) != -1) {
bufferedOutStream.write(bytes, 0, size);
}

Here is my suggestion (assuming we are dealing with just input stream and not how we gonna write to output stream):
If your use case does not have any requirement for high read performance, go ahead with FileInputStream. For example:
FileInputStream fileInputStream = new FileInputStream("filePath");
byte[] bytes = new byte[1024];
int size;
while ((size = fileInputStream.read(bytes)) != -1) {
outputStream.write(bytes, 0, size);
}
For better read performance, use BufferedInputStream and stick to its default buffer size and read single byte at a time. For example:
byte[] bytes = new byte[1];
BufferedInputStream bufferedInputStream =
new BufferedInputStream(fileInputStream("filePath"))
int size;
while ((size = bufferedInputStream.read(bytes)) != -1) {
outputStream.write(bytes, 0, size);
}
For more performance, try tuning the buffer size of BufferedInputStream and read one byte at a time. For example:
byte[] bytes = new byte[1];
BufferedInputStream bufferedInputStream =
new BufferedInputStream(fileInputStream("filePath"), 16048)
int size;
while ((size = bufferedInputStream.read(bytes)) != -1) {
outputStream.write(bytes, 0, size);
}
If you require even more, use buffer on top of BufferedInputStream. For example:
byte[] bytes = new byte[1024];
BufferedInputStream bufferedInputStream =
new BufferedInputStream(fileInputStream("filePath"), 16048)
int size;
while ((size = bufferedInputStream.read(bytes)) != -1) {
outputStream.write(bytes, 0, size);
}

You basically have a byte container of the length you specified (1024*32)
Then, the inputStream will fill as much as possible, probably the full container, iteration throughout iteration until it reaches the end of the file when it will fill only the remaining bytes, and return -1 the next iteration (the one it cant read anything)
So you are basically copy&pasting from input to output in chunks of 1024*32 bytes size
Hope it helps you understand the code
By the way, the last iteration, if the input stream has less than 1024*32, the output will receive not only the last part of the file but also a repetition of the previous iteration contents for the bytes not filled it the last iteration.

The idea is not to read the entire file contents at one time using the buffered input stream. You use the buffered input stream to read as many bytes as the bytes[] array size. You consume the bytes read and then move on to reading more bytes from the file. Hence you don't need know the file size in order to read it.
This post will be more helpful as it explains why you should wrap a fileinputstream with a buffered input stream
Why is using BufferedInputStream to read a file byte by byte faster than using FileInputStream?

A better way to find out how many bytes are in a stream?

Currently, I am relying on the ObjectInputStream.available() method to tell me how many bytes are left in a stream. Reason for this -- I am writing some unit/integration tests on certain functions that deal with streams and I am just trying to ensure that the available() method returns 0 after I am done.
Unfortunately, upon testing for failure (i.e., I have sent about 8 bytes down the stream) my assertion for available() == 0 is coming up true when it should be false. It should show >0 or 8 bytes!
I know that the available() method is classically unreliable, but I figured it would show something at least > 0!
Is there a more reliable way of checking if a stream is empty or not (The is my main goal here after all)? Perhaps in the Apache IO domain or some other library out there?
Does anyone know why the available() method is so profoundly unreliable; what is the point of it? Or, is there a specific, proper way of using it?
Update:
So, as many of you can read from the comments, the main issue I am facing is that on one end of a stream, I am sending a certain number of bytes but on the other end, not all the bytes are arriving!
Specifically, I am sending 205498 bytes on one end and only getting 204988 on the other, consistently. I am controlling both sides of this operation between threads in a socket, but it should be no matter.
Here is the code I have written to collect all the bytes.
public static int copyStream(InputStream readFrom, OutputStream writeTo, int bytesToRead)
throws IOException {
int bytesReadTotal = 0, bytesRead = 0, countTries = 0, available = 0, bufferSize = 1024 * 4;
byte[] buffer = new byte[bufferSize];
while (bytesReadTotal < bytesToRead) {
if (bytesToRead - bytesReadTotal < bufferSize)
buffer = new byte[bytesToRead - bytesReadTotal];
if (0 < (available = readFrom.available())) {
bytesReadTotal += (bytesRead = readFrom.read(buffer));
writeTo.write(buffer, 0, bytesRead);
countTries = 0;
} else if (countTries < 1000)
try {
countTries++;
Thread.sleep(1L);
} catch (InterruptedException ignore) {}
else
break;
}
return bytesReadTotal;
}
I put the countTries variable in there just to see what happens. Even without countTires in there, it will block forever before it reaches the BytesToRead.
What would cause the stream to suddenly block indefinitely like that? I know on the other end it fully sends the bytes over (as it actually utilizes the same method and I see that it completes the function with the full BytesToRead matching bytesReadTotal in the end. But the receiver doesn't. In fact, when I look at the arrays, they match up perfectly up till the end as well.
UPDATE2
I noticed that when I added a writeTo.flush() at the end of my copyStream method, it seems to work again. Hmm.. Why are flushes so vital in this situation. I.e., why would not using it cause a stream to perma-block?

The available() method only returns how many bytes can be read without blocking (which may be 0). In order to see if there are any bytes left in the stream, you have to read() or read(byte[]) which will return the number of bytes read. If the return value is -1 then you have reached the end of file.
This little code snippet will loop through an InputStream until it gets to the end (read() returns -1). I don't think it can ever return 0 because it should block until it can either read 1 byte or discover there is nothing left to read (and therefore return -1)
int currentBytesRead=0;
int totalBytesRead=0;
byte[] buf = new byte[1024];
while((currentBytesRead =in.read(buf))>0){
totalBytesRead+=currentBytesRead;
}

How to use NIO to write InputStream to File?

I am using following way to write InputStream to File:
private void writeToFile(InputStream stream) throws IOException {
String filePath = "C:\\Test.jpg";
FileChannel outChannel = new FileOutputStream(filePath).getChannel();
ReadableByteChannel inChannel = Channels.newChannel(stream);
ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(1024);
while(true) {
if(inChannel.read(buffer) == -1) {
break;
}
buffer.flip();
outChannel.write(buffer);
buffer.clear();
}
inChannel.close();
outChannel.close();
}
I was wondering if this is the right way to use NIO. I have read a method FileChannel.transferFrom, which takes three parameter:
ReadableByteChannel src
long position
long count
In my case I only have src, I don't have the position and count, is there any way I can use this method to create the file?
Also for Image is there any better way to create image only from InputStream and NIO?
Any information would be very useful to me. There are similar questions here, in SO, but I cannot find any particular solution which suites my case.

I would use Files.copy
Files.copy(is, Paths.get(filePath));
as for your version
ByteBuffer.allocateDirect is faster - Java will make a best effort to perform native I/O operations directly upon it.
Closing is unreliable, if first fails second will never execute. Use try-with-resources instead, Channels are AutoCloseable too.

No it's not correct. You run the risk of losing data. The canonical NIO copy loop is as follows:
while (in.read(buffer) >= 0 || buffer.position() > 0)
{
buffer.flip();
out.write(buffer);
buffer.compact();
}
Note the changed loop conditions, which take care of flushing the output at EOS, and the use of compact() instead of clear(), which takes care of the possibility of short writes.
Similarly the canonical transferTo()/transferFrom() loop is as follows:
long offset = 0;
long quantum = 1024*1024; // or however much you want to transfer at a time
long count;
while ((count = out.transferFrom(in, offset, quantum)) > 0)
{
offset += count;
}
It must be called in a loop, as it isn't guaranteed to transfer the entire quantum.

How can I increase performance on reading the InputStream?

This very well may just be a KISS moment, but I feel like I should ask anyway.
I have a thread and it's reading from a sockets InputStream. Since I am dealing in particularly small data sizes (as in the data that I can expect to recieve from is in the order of 100 - 200 bytes), I set the buffer array size to 256. As part of my read function I have a check that will ensure that when I read from the InputStream that I got all of the data. If I didn't then I will recursively call the read function again. For each recursive call I merge the two buffer arrays back together.
My problem is, while I never anticipate using more than the buffer of 256, I want to be safe. But if sheep begin to fly and the buffer is significantly more the read the function (by estimation) will begin to take an exponential curve more time to complete.
How can I increase the effiency of the read function and/or the buffer merging?
Here is the read function as it stands.
int BUFFER_AMOUNT = 256;
private int read(byte[] buffer) throws IOException {
int bytes = mInStream.read(buffer); // Read the input stream
if (bytes == -1) { // If bytes == -1 then we didn't get all of the data
byte[] newBuffer = new byte[BUFFER_AMOUNT]; // Try to get the rest
int newBytes;
newBytes = read(newBuffer); // Recurse until we have all the data
byte[] oldBuffer = new byte[bytes + newBytes]; // make the final array size
// Merge buffer into the begining of old buffer.
// We do this so that once the method finishes, we can just add the
// modified buffer to a queue later in the class for processing.
for (int i = 0; i < bytes; i++)
oldBuffer[i] = buffer[i];
for (int i = bytes; i < bytes + newBytes; i++) // Merge newBuffer into the latter half of old Buffer
oldBuffer[i] = newBuffer[i];
// Used for the recursion
buffer = oldBuffer; // And now we set buffer to the new buffer full of all the data.
return bytes + newBytes;
}
return bytes;
}
EDIT: Am I being paranoid (unjustifiedly) and should just set the buffer to 2048 and call it done?

BufferedInputStream, as noted by Roland, and DataInputStream.readFully(), which replaces all the looping code.

int BUFFER_AMOUNT = 256;
Should be final if you don't want it changing at runtime.
if (bytes == -1) {
Should be !=
Also, I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to accomplish with this code. Do you mind shedding some light on that?

I have no idea what you mean by "small data sizes". You should measure whether the time is spent in kernel mode (then you are issuing too many reads directly on the socket) or in user mode (then your algorithm is too complicated).
In the former case, just wrap the input with a BufferedInputStream with 4096 bytes of buffer and read from it.
In the latter case, just use this code:
/**
* Reads as much as possible from the stream.
* #return The number of bytes read into the buffer, or -1
* if nothing has been read because the end of file has been reached.
*/
static int readGreedily(InputStream is, byte[] buf, int start, int len) {
int nread;
int ptr = start; // index at which the data is put into the buffer
int rest = len; // number of bytes that we still want to read
while ((nread = is.read(buf, ptr, rest)) > 0) {
ptr += nread;
rest -= nread;
}
int totalRead = len - rest;
return (nread == -1 && totalRead == 0) ? -1 : totalRead;
}
This code completely avoids creating new objects, calling unnecessary methods and furthermore --- it is straightforward.