We Keep Coding

Return result of thread to a separate thread

For example if I have thread A and thread B. Thread A is my main thread where most of the application runs but when I need a value fetched from MySQL or another external source I create a new thread (thread B).
What is the best way of returning the value from thread B to thread A for further processing without causing thread A to wait until the value is available?

If you have a single task that needs to be done, you can use a Future and have the other Thread poll the (non-blocking) isDone() method whenever it is convenient.
If that task is executed frequently or you have many tasks to execute, using a ConcurrentLinkedQueue might be a better idea, which also comes in a variant that supports blocking till a result is delivered as LinkedBlockingQueue. Again: polling on the list whenever it is convenient will do the trick.
If you do not want to poll, you can instead work with a callback-functionality. For example if you use a Swing GUI, you can have the DB thread call invokeLater from the SwingUtilities class, so processing the request is done on the main Swing thread at the next possible time.
This is based on the EventQueue class, which might be more convenient to use in certain other scenarios.

Use a Queue, A will periodically poll the queue, B can put values to queue asynchroneously

You can use ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor which will return Future and you dont need to wait.
Sample Usage (From java Docs on Future)
interface ArchiveSearcher { String search(String target); }
class App {
ExecutorService executor = ...
ArchiveSearcher searcher = ...
void showSearch(final String target)
throws InterruptedException {
Future<String> future
= executor.submit(new Callable<String>() {
public String call() {
return searcher.search(target);
}});
displayOtherThings(); // do other things while searching
try {
displayText(future.get()); // use future
} catch (ExecutionException ex) { cleanup(); return; }
}
}
Same can be achieved from Future task too(visit above link, example are from there only)
The FutureTask class is an implementation of Future that implements Runnable, and so may be executed by an Executor. For example, the above construction with submit could be replaced by:
FutureTask<String> future =
new FutureTask<String>(new Callable<String>() {
public String call() {
return searcher.search(target);
}});
executor.execute(future);

For thread B, declare a class that implements Runnable. For example:
public class MyClass implements Runnable
{
private String input = null;
private String output = null;
public MyClass(String input)
{
this.input = input;
}
public String getOutput()
{
return output;
}
public void run()
{
output = func(input);
}
}
In thread A (which is your main thread), start thread B, and wait for it to complete only where you actually need its output. For example:
public String myFunc(String input) throws Exception
{
MyClass object = new MyClass(input);
Thread thread = new Thread(object);
thread.start();
// Do whatever you wanna do...
// ...
// ...
// And when you need the thread's output:
thread.join();
return object.getOutput();
}

If you don't want to deal with executors, just create a FutureTask and pass it to a new thread.
FutureTask<String> f = new FutureTask<String>(new Callable<String>() {
#Override
public String call() {
return "";
}
});
new Thread(f).start();
while (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
if (f.isDone()) {
System.out.println(f.get());
break;
}
//do smth else
}

Organize your main thread as an event loop:
BlockingQueue<Runnable> eventQueue=
new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
for (;;) {
Runnable nextEvent=eventQueue.take();
nextEvent.run();
}
Thread B:
Result r=fetchFromDB();
eventQueue.put(new ResultHandler(r));
where ResultHandler is a Runnable which knows how to handle the result.

ExecutorService.execute() does not return the thread type

I have something like this
public static void runThread(Thread t){
ExecutorService threadExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
threadExecutor.execute(t);
}
if I do Thread.currentThread(), then I get back weblogic.work.ExecuteThread or sometimes java.lang.Thread (I used Weblogic as my AppServer), but if I do
public static void runThread(Thread t){
//ExecutorService threadExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
//threadExecutor.execute(t);
t.start();
}
then when I dod Thread.currentThread(), I get back com.my.thread.JSFExecutionThread, which is the Thread that I passed in and this is what I want. Is there a way to fix so the ExecutorService#execute() return the correct Thread type like Thread#start()? The thing is that I want to use ExecutorService, because I want to leverage shutdown() and shutdownNow()
EDIT
Is there anything wrong with this implementation?
/**
* Run {#code Runnable runnable} with {#code ExecutorService}
* #param runnable {#code Runnable}
* #return
*/
public static ExecutorService runThread(Thread t){
ExecutorService threadExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(
new ExecutionThreadFactory(t));
threadExecutor.execute(t);
return threadExecutor;
}
private static class ExecutionThreadFactory implements ThreadFactory{
private JSFExecutionThread jsfThread;
ExecutionThreadFactory(Thread t){
if(t instanceof JSFExecutionThread){
jsfThread = (JSFExecutionThread)t;
}
}
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
if(jsfThread != null){
return jsfThread;
}else{
return new Thread(r);
}
}
}

Is there anything wrong with this implementation?
Yes.
First, the ExecutorService manages the lifetime of each Thread from the time the ThreadFactory creates it until the executor is done with it... and the punchline, a Thread is not re-usable, once it has terminated it can not be started.
Second
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
if(jsfThread != null){
return jsfThread;
}else{
return new Thread(r);
}
}
This code violates the contract of ThreadFactory.newThread by not making the Runnable r set as the runnable to be executed by the jsfThread.

How to check if a thread is running in the ExecutorService Thread pool

How do i check if a thread is running in the pool of thread ExecutorService?
Background:
I want to synchronize between the threads in the Thread pool if there is a flag set.
So if the flag is set to true for synchronization, then I have to check if other Threads are running or wait for its completion and then invoke the blocking thread with synchronize, so that other threads would wait for this blocking thread to finish.
If flag is not set then no need to synchronize and could execute the threads in parallel.
Thanks!

You need to use a Semaphore.
This allows you to have a number of "permits" to do work. If you only want one task running at a time then have a Semaphore with one permit, otherwise have a Semaphore with a number of permits greater than the number of Threads in the pool.
static class Worker implements Runnable {
final Semaphore semaphore;
public Worker(Semaphore semaphore) {
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
semaphore.acquire();
try {
//do stuff
} finally {
semaphore.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final int numThreads = 10;
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
final Semaphore semaphore;
boolean myflag = true;
if (myflag) {
semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
} else {
semaphore = new Semaphore(numThreads);
}
final Worker worker = new Worker(semaphore);
executorService.submit(worker);
}
This example is a little contrived as you can just use a newSingleThreadExecutor() when you only need one task to run at a time - but I assume you know that and for some reason cannot.
EDIT
Having poked around a little to see if this can be tidied I came across this. This hints at a neater solution:
static interface TaskBlocker {
void acquire();
void release();
}
static class Worker implements Runnable {
final TaskBlocker taskBlocker;
public Worker(TaskBlocker taskBlocker) {
this.taskBlocker = taskBlocker;
}
#Override
public void run() {
taskBlocker.acquire();
try {
//do stuff
} finally {
taskBlocker.release();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final int numThreads = 10;
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numThreads);
final TaskBlocker taskBlocker;
boolean myflag = true;
if (myflag) {
taskBlocker = new TaskBlocker() {
final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
#Override
public void acquire() {
lock.lock();
}
#Override
public void release() {
lock.unlock();
}
};
} else {
taskBlocker = new TaskBlocker() {
#Override
public void acquire() {
}
#Override
public void release() {
}
};
}
final Worker worker = new Worker(taskBlocker);
executorService.submit(worker);
}

In short, you don't. Executors are not meant to be used that way. If you want to manage your threads manually, do it without Executors. If you use Executors, shift your thinking from Threads to Runnables. Make your Runnables or the Classes and methods thread-safe, using synchronization or any of the high-level abstractions in java.util.concurrent.

How do i check if a thread is running in the pool of thread ExecutorService?
If you just want to know if a thread is running in a specific ExecutorService, you can create the ExecutorService with a specific ThreadFactory and have it attach some special property to the thread, such as a special name.
private static final String EXECUTOR_THREADNAME_PREFIX = "ExecutorThread";
ThreadFactory threadFactory = new ThreadFactory() {
private final AtomicInteger id = new AtomicInteger(0);
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread thread = new Thread(r);
thread.setName(EXECUTOR_THREADNAME_PREFIX + "_" + id.incrementAndGet());
return thread;
}
};
myExecutor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool(threadFactory);
Then, in the thread, you simply check if the name starts with your prefix:
if (Thread.currentThread().getName().startsWith(EXECUTOR_THREADNAME_PREFIX)) {
// In executor.
} else {
// Not in executor.
}

What is the simplest way in java to run many methods in separate threads and wait until all will be finished?

I want a method that runs 2 or more methods in separate threads. I want be sure that method won't finish before all threads are done.

The best approach is to utilize the Executor Service API to manage a thread pool instead of starting an open-ended number of threads on your own.
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (Runnable r : new Runnable[] {
new R() { void r() { myMethod1(); }},
new R() { void r() { myMethod2(); }},
})
pool.execute(r);
pool.shutdown();
pool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
abstract class R implements Runnable
public final void run() { r(); }
abstract void r();
}
Note that it is not advisable to insist on every method running in its own, separate thread. Threads are quite heavyweight (each allocating a complete call stack) and performance actually decreases as the thread count increases far beyond the number of available processor cores.

I prefer something like this:
public static void runParallel(Runnable... runnables) throws InterruptedException {
final CountDownLatch done = new CountDownLatch(runnables.length);
for (final Runnable r: runnables) {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
r.run();
} finally {
done.countDown();
}
}
}).start();
}
done.await();
}
An advantage of this approach is that it also works with thread pool (i.e. you can replace new Thread(...).start() with executor.submit(...)).
Also it allows you to use pre-existing thread pool, unlike solutions based on awaitTermination() that force you to create new pools for each invocation.

My solution is
Function:
public void runParallel(Runnable... runnables) throws InterruptedException {
List<Thread> threads = new ArrayList<Thread>(runnables.length);
for (Runnable runnable :runnables) {
Thread th = new Thread(runnable);
threads.add(th);
th.start();
}
for (Thread th : threads) {
th.join();
}
Use:
runParallel(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
method1()
}
}, new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
method2()
}
}
);
any better ideas? Maybe there is a shorter way that I'm not aware of ;)

Following the API given by damienix:
public void runParallel(Runnable... runnables) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(runnables.length);
for (Runnable runnable: runnables) {
pool.submit(runnable);
}
pool.shutdown();
pool.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
}

Is there an ExecutorService that uses the current thread?

What I am after is a compatible way to configure the use of a thread pool or not. Ideally the rest of the code should not be impacted at all. I could use a thread pool with 1 thread but that isn't quite what I want. Any ideas?
ExecutorService es = threads == 0 ? new CurrentThreadExecutor() : Executors.newThreadPoolExecutor(threads);
// es.execute / es.submit / new ExecutorCompletionService(es) etc

Java 8 style:
Executor e = Runnable::run;

You can use Guava's MoreExecutors.newDirectExecutorService(), or MoreExecutors.directExecutor() if you don't need an ExecutorService.
If including Guava is too heavy-weight, you can implement something almost as good:
public final class SameThreadExecutorService extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
private final CountDownLatch signal = new CountDownLatch(1);
private SameThreadExecutorService() {
super(1, 1, 0, TimeUnit.DAYS, new SynchronousQueue<Runnable>(),
new ThreadPoolExecutor.CallerRunsPolicy());
}
#Override public void shutdown() {
super.shutdown();
signal.countDown();
}
public static ExecutorService getInstance() {
return SingletonHolder.instance;
}
private static class SingletonHolder {
static ExecutorService instance = createInstance();
}
private static ExecutorService createInstance() {
final SameThreadExecutorService instance
= new SameThreadExecutorService();
// The executor has one worker thread. Give it a Runnable that waits
// until the executor service is shut down.
// All other submitted tasks will use the RejectedExecutionHandler
// which runs tasks using the caller's thread.
instance.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
boolean interrupted = false;
try {
while (true) {
try {
instance.signal.await();
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
interrupted = true;
}
}
} finally {
if (interrupted) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}});
return Executors.unconfigurableScheduledExecutorService(instance);
}
}

Here's a really simple Executor (not ExecutorService, mind you) implementation that only uses the current thread. Stealing this from "Java Concurrency in Practice" (essential reading).
public class CurrentThreadExecutor implements Executor {
public void execute(Runnable r) {
r.run();
}
}
ExecutorService is a more elaborate interface, but could be handled with the same approach.

I wrote an ExecutorService based on the AbstractExecutorService.
/**
* Executes all submitted tasks directly in the same thread as the caller.
*/
public class SameThreadExecutorService extends AbstractExecutorService {
//volatile because can be viewed by other threads
private volatile boolean terminated;
#Override
public void shutdown() {
terminated = true;
}
#Override
public boolean isShutdown() {
return terminated;
}
#Override
public boolean isTerminated() {
return terminated;
}
#Override
public boolean awaitTermination(long theTimeout, TimeUnit theUnit) throws InterruptedException {
shutdown(); // TODO ok to call shutdown? what if the client never called shutdown???
return terminated;
}
#Override
public List<Runnable> shutdownNow() {
return Collections.emptyList();
}
#Override
public void execute(Runnable theCommand) {
theCommand.run();
}
}

I had to use the same "CurrentThreadExecutorService" for testing purposes and, although all suggested solutions were nice (particularly the one mentioning the Guava way), I came up with something similar to what Peter Lawrey suggested here.
As mentioned by Axelle Ziegler here, unfortunately Peter's solution won't actually work because of the check introduced in ThreadPoolExecutor on the maximumPoolSize constructor parameter (i.e. maximumPoolSize can't be <=0).
In order to circumvent that, I did the following:
private static ExecutorService currentThreadExecutorService() {
CallerRunsPolicy callerRunsPolicy = new ThreadPoolExecutor.CallerRunsPolicy();
return new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, 1, 0L, TimeUnit.SECONDS, new SynchronousQueue<Runnable>(), callerRunsPolicy) {
#Override
public void execute(Runnable command) {
callerRunsPolicy.rejectedExecution(command, this);
}
};
}

You can use the RejectedExecutionHandler to run the task in the current thread.
public static final ThreadPoolExecutor CURRENT_THREAD_EXECUTOR = new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, 0, 0, TimeUnit.DAYS, new SynchronousQueue<Runnable>(), new RejectedExecutionHandler() {
public void rejectedExecution(Runnable r, ThreadPoolExecutor executor) {
r.run();
}
});
You only need one of these ever.