I am writing a job queue using BlockingQueue and ExecutorService. It basically waiting new data in the queue, if there are any data put into the queue, executorService will fetch data from queue. But the problem is that i am using a loop that loops to wait the queue to have data and thus the cpu usage is super high.
I am new to use this api. Not sure how to improve this.
ExecutorService mExecutorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
BlockingQueue<T> mBlockingQueue = new ArrayBlockingQueue();
public void handleRequests() {
Future<T> future = mExecutorService.submit(new WorkerHandler(mBlockingQueue, mQueueState));
try {
value = future.get();
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
if (mListener != null && returnedValue != null) {
mListener.onNewItemDequeued(value);
}
}
}
private static class WorkerHandler<T> implements Callable<T> {
private final BlockingQueue<T> mBlockingQueue;
private PollingQueueState mQueueState;
PollingRequestHandler(BlockingQueue<T> blockingQueue, PollingQueueState state) {
mBlockingQueue = blockingQueue;
mQueueState = state;
}
#Override
public T call() throws Exception {
T value = null;
while (true) { // problem is here, this loop takes full cpu usage if queue is empty
if (mBlockingQueue.isEmpty()) {
mQueueState = PollingQueueState.WAITING;
} else {
mQueueState = PollingQueueState.FETCHING;
}
if (mQueueState == PollingQueueState.FETCHING) {
try {
value = mBlockingQueue.take();
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Log.e(TAG, e.getMessage(), e);
break;
}
}
}
Any suggestions on how to improve this would be much appreciated!
You don't need to test for the queue to be empty, you just take(), so the thread blocks until data is available.
When an element is put on the queue the thread awakens an value is set.
If you don't need to cancel the task you just need:
#Override
public T call() throws Exception {
T value = mBlockingQueue.take();
return value;
}
If you want to be able to cancel the task :
#Override
public T call() throws Exception {
T value = null;
while (value==null) {
try {
value = mBlockingQueue.poll(50L,TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Log.e(TAG, e.getMessage(), e);
break;
}
}
return value;
}
if (mBlockingQueue.isEmpty()) {
mQueueState = PollingQueueState.WAITING;
} else {
mQueueState = PollingQueueState.FETCHING;
}
if (mQueueState == PollingQueueState.FETCHING)
Remove these lines, the break;, and the matching closing brace.
Related
My situation
I'm trying to craft a functionality which would execute n (where n >=0) requests to a given endpoint, but I do understand that sometimes that endpoint might not respond due to
500 error or other issue, so I want to repeat my requests to an endpoint (with a
small interval in between [not yet implemented]) till I get a response, or till I get an unknown error which would indicate what I can't repeat, because of other reasons than a crashed server.
So, I've tried to implement this piece of functionality using Executors and concurrency provided by Java 11 and it does not work as I want
I can't resubmit failed tasks till I get all the responses and I don't know why
I have a method
private void DoMyTasks(List<MyRequest> requests) {
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
final ExecutorCompletionService<MyReqResDto> completionService =
new ExecutorCompletionService<>(executorService);
for (final MyRequest MyRequest : requests) {
completionService.submit(new MyCallableRequest(webClient, MyRequest));
}
List<MyReqResDto> responses = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < requests.size(); ++i) {
try {
final Future<MyReqResDto> future = completionService.take();
if (future.get().getEx() != null) {
completionService.submit(new MyCallableRequest(webClient, future.get().getMyRequest()));
}
responses.add(future.get());
} catch (ExecutionException | InterruptedException e) {
log.warn("Error"));
} catch (Exception exception) {
log.error("Other error");
} finally {
executorService.shutdown();
try {
if (!executorService.awaitTermination(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES)) {
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
}
}
responses.size();
}
I'm trying to repeat failed tasks with
if (future.get().getEx() != null) {
completionService.submit(new MyCallableRequest(webClient, future.get().getMyRequest()));
}
and yet, at the end of execution I don't get all responses for my requests. What I get is at most 3 to 5 responses when I try executing 10 requests. Why? How to fix it?
My callable class is
public class MyCallableRequest implements Callable<MyReqResDto> {
private final WebClient webClient;
private final MyRequest myRequest;
public MyCallableRequest(WebClient webClient, MyRequest myRequest) {
this.webClient = webClient;
this.myRequest = myRequest;
}
#Override
public MyReqResDto call() throws Exception {
try {
if (new Random().nextInt(10) % 2 == 0) {
throw new TestException();
}
if (new Random().nextInt(10) % 7 == 0) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
WebClient.UriSpec<WebClient.RequestBodySpec> uriSpec = webClient.post();
WebClient.RequestBodySpec bodySpec = uriSpec.uri(
s -> s.path("/myEndpoint").build());
MyRequestDto myMyRequestDto = new MyRequestDto();
WebClient.RequestHeadersSpec<?> headersSpec =
bodySpec.body(Mono.just(myMyRequestDto), MyRequestDto.class);
ResponseDto responseDto = headersSpec.exchangeToMono(s -> {
if (s.statusCode().equals(HttpStatus.OK)) {
return s.bodyToMono(ResponseDto.class);
} else if (s.statusCode().is1xxInformational()) {
return s.createException().flatMap(Mono::error);
} else if (s.statusCode().is3xxRedirection()) {
return s.createException().flatMap(Mono::error);
} else if (s.statusCode().is4xxClientError()) {
return s.createException().flatMap(Mono::error);
} else if (s.statusCode().is5xxServerError()) {
return s.createException().flatMap(Mono::error);
} else {
return s.createException().flatMap(Mono::error);
}
//return null;
}).block();
return new MyReqResDto(myRequest, responseDto, null);
} catch (Exception exception) {
return new MyReqResDto(myRequest, null, exception);
}
}
}
Update NO. 1
I changed a for loop to a while loop according to a comment provided by
Slaw and an answer provided by erickson. And this solutions works, meaning that
it is hammering an endpoint till all responses are received without
any errors. But I'm still not sure it feels that I'm building a sh**
tower with this solution. Is there any thread related issues that I should be aware while using executor like this?
while (true) {
Future < MyReqResDto > future = null;
try {
future = completionService.take();
if (future.get().getEx() != null /*and check exception if possible to handle, if not break from a loop*/) {
completionService.submit(new MyCallableRequest(webClient, future.get().getRequestCT());
} else {
responseDtos.add(future.get());
}
} catch (ExecutionException | InterruptedException e) {
log.warn("Error while downloading", e.getCause());
// test if I can recover from these exceptions if no
break;
}
}
if (responseDtos.size() == requests.size()) {
executorService.shutdown();
try {
if (!executorService.awaitTermination(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES)) {
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
break;
}
You are shutting down the executor as soon as you get one response. Perhaps a few more have completed in this time, but you are not allowing time for any others to complete.
Your logic here is wrong. The executor should only be shut down when you are sure no more tasks will be submitted; at soonest, that is after the loop responsible for re-submitting failures.
Here is a simplified view of your code to highlight the premature shutdown:
for (int i = 0; i < requests.size(); ++i) {
try {
final Future<MyReqResDto> future = completionService.take();
...
responses.add(future.get());
...
} finally {
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
I am trying to call a method multiple times every 60 seconds until a success response from the method which actually calls a rest end point on a different service. As of now I am using do while loop and using
Thread.sleep(60000);
to make the main thread wait 60 seconds which I feel is not the ideal way due to concurrency issues.
I came across the CountDownLatch method using
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
boolean processingCompleteWithin60Second = latch.await(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
#Override
public void run(){
String processStat = null;
try {
status = getStat(processStatId);
if("SUCCEEDED".equals(processStat))
{
latch.countDown();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
I have the run method in a different class which implements runnable. Not able to get this working. Any idea what is wrong?
You could use a CompletableFuture instead of CountDownLatch to return the result:
CompletableFuture<String> future = new CompletableFuture<>();
invokeYourLogicInAnotherThread(future);
String result = future.get(); // this blocks
And in another thread (possibly in a loop):
#Override
public void run() {
String processStat = null;
try {
status = getStat(processStatId);
if("SUCCEEDED".equals(processStat))
{
future.complete(processStat);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
future.completeExceptionally(e);
}
}
future.get() will block until something is submitted via complete() method and return the submitted value, or it will throw the exception supplied via completeExceptionally() wrapped in an ExecutionException.
There is also get() version with timeout limit:
String result = future.get(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
Finally got it to work using Executor Framework.
final int[] value = new int[1];
pollExecutor.scheduleWithFixedDelay(new Runnable() {
Map<String, String> statMap = null;
#Override
public void run() {
try {
statMap = coldService.doPoll(id);
} catch (Exception e) {
}
if (statMap != null) {
for (Map.Entry<String, String> entry : statMap
.entrySet()) {
if ("failed".equals(entry.getValue())) {
value[0] = 2;
pollExecutor.shutdown();
}
}
}
}
}, 0, 5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
try {
pollExecutor.awaitTermination(40, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
Problem statement
I have a JMS listener running as a thread listening to a topic. As soon a message comes in, I spawn a new Thread to process the in-bounded message. So for each incoming message I spawn a new Thread.
I have a scenario where duplicate message is also being processed when it is injected immediately in a sequential order. I need to prevent this from being processed. I tried using a ConcurrentHashMap to hold the process times where I add in the entry as soon as Thread is spawn and remove it from the map as soon Thread completes its execution. But it did not help when I tried with the scenario where I passed in same one after the another in concurrent fashion.
General Outline of my issue before you plunge into the actual code base
onMessage(){
processIncomingMessage(){
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1000);
//Map is used to make an entry before i spawn a new thread to process incoming message
//Map contains "Key as the incoming message" and "value as boolean"
//check map for duplicate check
//The below check is failing and allowing duplicate messages to be processed in parallel
if(entryisPresentInMap){
//return doing nothing
}else{
//spawn a new thread for each incoming message
//also ensure a duplicate message being processed when it in process by an active thread
executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
//actuall business logic
}finally{
//remove entry from the map so after processing is done with the message
}
}
}
}
Standalone example to mimic the scenario
public class DuplicateCheck {
private static Map<String,Boolean> duplicateCheckMap =
new ConcurrentHashMap<String,Boolean>(1000);
private static String name=null;
private static String[] nameArray = new String[20];
public static void processMessage(String message){
System.out.println("Processed message =" +message);
}
public static void main(String args[]){
nameArray[0] = "Peter";
nameArray[1] = "Peter";
nameArray[2] = "Adam";
for(int i=0;i<=nameArray.length;i++){
name=nameArray[i];
if(duplicateCheckMap.get(name)!=null && duplicateCheckMap.get(name)){
System.out.println("Thread detected for processing your name ="+name);
return;
}
addNameIntoMap(name);
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
processMessage(name);
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
} finally {
freeNameFromMap(name);
}
}
}).start();
}
}
private static synchronized void addNameIntoMap(String name) {
if (name != null) {
duplicateCheckMap.put(name, true);
System.out.println("Thread processing the "+name+" is added to the status map");
}
}
private static synchronized void freeNameFromMap(String name) {
if (name != null) {
duplicateCheckMap.remove(name);
System.out.println("Thread processing the "+name+" is released from the status map");
}
}
Snippet of the code is below
public void processControlMessage(final Message message) {
RDPWorkflowControlMessage rdpWorkflowControlMessage= unmarshallControlMessage(message);
final String workflowName = rdpWorkflowControlMessage.getWorkflowName();
final String controlMessageEvent=rdpWorkflowControlMessage.getControlMessage().value();
if(controlMessageStateMap.get(workflowName)!=null && controlMessageStateMap.get(workflowName)){
log.info("Cache cleanup for the workflow :"+workflowName+" is already in progress");
return;
}else {
log.info("doing nothing");
}
Semaphore controlMessageLock = new Semaphore(1);
try{
controlMessageLock.acquire();
synchronized(this){
new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
try {
lock.lock();
log.info("Processing Workflow Control Message for the workflow :"+workflowName);
if (message instanceof TextMessage) {
if ("REFRESH".equalsIgnoreCase(controlMessageEvent)) {
clearControlMessageBuffer();
enableControlMessageStatus(workflowName);
List<String> matchingValues=new ArrayList<String>();
matchingValues.add(workflowName);
ConcreteSetDAO tasksSetDAO=taskEventListener.getConcreteSetDAO();
ConcreteSetDAO workflowSetDAO=workflowEventListener.getConcreteSetDAO();
tasksSetDAO.deleteMatchingRecords(matchingValues);
workflowSetDAO.deleteMatchingRecords(matchingValues);
fetchNewWorkflowItems();
addShutdownHook(workflowName);
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Error extracting item of type RDPWorkflowControlMessage from message "
+ message);
} finally {
disableControlMessageStatus(workflowName);
lock.unlock();
}
}
}).start();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
log.info("Interrupted Exception during control message lock acquisition"+ie);
}finally{
controlMessageLock.release();
}
}
private void addShutdownHook(final String workflowName) {
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
public void run() {
disableControlMessageStatus(workflowName);
}
});
log.info("Shut Down Hook Attached for the thread processing the workflow :"+workflowName);
}
private RDPWorkflowControlMessage unmarshallControlMessage(Message message) {
RDPWorkflowControlMessage rdpWorkflowControlMessage = null;
try {
TextMessage textMessage = (TextMessage) message;
rdpWorkflowControlMessage = marshaller.unmarshalItem(textMessage.getText(), RDPWorkflowControlMessage.class);
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Error extracting item of type RDPWorkflowTask from message "
+ message);
}
return rdpWorkflowControlMessage;
}
private void fetchNewWorkflowItems() {
initSSL();
List<RDPWorkflowTask> allTasks=initAllTasks();
taskEventListener.addRDPWorkflowTasks(allTasks);
workflowEventListener.updateWorkflowStatus(allTasks);
}
private void clearControlMessageBuffer() {
taskEventListener.getRecordsForUpdate().clear();
workflowEventListener.getRecordsForUpdate().clear();
}
private synchronized void enableControlMessageStatus(String workflowName) {
if (workflowName != null) {
controlMessageStateMap.put(workflowName, true);
log.info("Thread processing the "+workflowName+" is added to the status map");
}
}
private synchronized void disableControlMessageStatus(String workflowName) {
if (workflowName != null) {
controlMessageStateMap.remove(workflowName);
log.info("Thread processing the "+workflowName+" is released from the status map");
}
}
I have modified my code to incorporate suggestions provided below but still it is not working
public void processControlMessage(final Message message) {
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1000);
try{
lock.lock();
RDPWorkflowControlMessage rdpWorkflowControlMessage= unmarshallControlMessage(message);
final String workflowName = rdpWorkflowControlMessage.getWorkflowName();
final String controlMessageEvent=rdpWorkflowControlMessage.getControlMessage().value();
if(controlMessageStateMap.get(workflowName)!=null && controlMessageStateMap.get(workflowName)){
log.info("Cache cleanup for the workflow :"+workflowName+" is already in progress");
return;
}else {
log.info("doing nothing");
}
enableControlMessageStatus(workflowName);
executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
//actual code
fetchNewWorkflowItems();
addShutdownHook(workflowName);
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Error extracting item of type RDPWorkflowControlMessage from message "
+ message);
} finally {
disableControlMessageStatus(workflowName);
}
}
});
} finally {
executorService.shutdown();
lock.unlock();
}
}
private void addShutdownHook(final String workflowName) {
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
public void run() {
disableControlMessageStatus(workflowName);
}
});
log.info("Shut Down Hook Attached for the thread processing the workflow :"+workflowName);
}
private synchronized void enableControlMessageStatus(String workflowName) {
if (workflowName != null) {
controlMessageStateMap.put(workflowName, true);
log.info("Thread processing the "+workflowName+" is added to the status map");
}
}
private synchronized void disableControlMessageStatus(String workflowName) {
if (workflowName != null) {
controlMessageStateMap.remove(workflowName);
log.info("Thread processing the "+workflowName+" is released from the status map");
}
}
This is how you should add a value to a map. This double checking makes sure that only one thread adds a value to a map at any particular moment of time and you can control the access afterwards. Remove all the locking logic afterwards. It is as simple as that
public void processControlMessage(final String workflowName) {
if(!tryAddingMessageInProcessingMap(workflowName)){
Thread.sleep(1000); // sleep 1 sec and try again
processControlMessage(workflowName);
return ;
}
System.out.println(workflowName);
try{
// your code goes here
} finally{
controlMessageStateMap.remove(workflowName);
}
}
private boolean tryAddingMessageInProcessingMap(final String workflowName) {
if(controlMessageStateMap .get(workflowName)==null){
synchronized (this) {
if(controlMessageStateMap .get(workflowName)==null){
controlMessageStateMap.put(workflowName, true);
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
Read here more for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-checked_locking
The issue is fixed now. Many thanks to #awsome for the approach. It is avoiding the duplicates when a thread is already processing the incoming duplicate message. If no thread is processing then it gets picked up
public void processControlMessage(final Message message) {
try {
lock.lock();
RDPWorkflowControlMessage rdpWorkflowControlMessage = unmarshallControlMessage(message);
final String workflowName = rdpWorkflowControlMessage.getWorkflowName();
final String controlMessageEvent = rdpWorkflowControlMessage.getControlMessage().value();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
if (message instanceof TextMessage) {
if ("REFRESH".equalsIgnoreCase(controlMessageEvent)) {
if (tryAddingWorkflowNameInStatusMap(workflowName)) {
log.info("Processing Workflow Control Message for the workflow :"+ workflowName);
addShutdownHook(workflowName);
clearControlMessageBuffer();
List<String> matchingValues = new ArrayList<String>();
matchingValues.add(workflowName);
ConcreteSetDAO tasksSetDAO = taskEventListener.getConcreteSetDAO();
ConcreteSetDAO workflowSetDAO = workflowEventListener.getConcreteSetDAO();
tasksSetDAO.deleteMatchingRecords(matchingValues);
workflowSetDAO.deleteMatchingRecords(matchingValues);
List<RDPWorkflowTask> allTasks=fetchNewWorkflowItems(workflowName);
updateTasksAndWorkflowSet(allTasks);
removeWorkflowNameFromProcessingMap(workflowName);
} else {
log.info("Cache clean up is already in progress for the workflow ="+ workflowName);
return;
}
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Error extracting item of type RDPWorkflowControlMessage from message "
+ message);
}
}
}).start();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
private boolean tryAddingWorkflowNameInStatusMap(final String workflowName) {
if(controlMessageStateMap.get(workflowName)==null){
synchronized (this) {
if(controlMessageStateMap.get(workflowName)==null){
log.info("Adding an entry in to the map for the workflow ="+workflowName);
controlMessageStateMap.put(workflowName, true);
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
private synchronized void removeWorkflowNameFromProcessingMap(String workflowName) {
if (workflowName != null
&& (controlMessageStateMap.get(workflowName) != null && controlMessageStateMap
.get(workflowName))) {
controlMessageStateMap.remove(workflowName);
log.info("Thread processing the " + workflowName+ " is released from the status map");
}
}
I have the following code which is executed asynchronously. I would like to make it synchronous in order to follow some logical flow but I cannot work out how.
You will see that scanning is set to true to indicate that the method is still working, at the beginning - I then initiate a findPrinters(...) command - this contains a DiscoveryHandler which runs asynchronously - foundPrinter() is called each time an item is discovered. discoveryFinished() is when the discovery process is successfully completed, and discoveryError(...) is called whenever an error occurs.
I rely on something being set in my DiscoveryHandler before I would like to return from this method. Hence why I have while (scanning) underneath it. But this feels like a hack to me, and not the correct way of doing things. I cannot get wait() and notify() working. Can someone tell me what the correct way to do this is please?
private boolean findPrinter(final Context ctx) {
try {
scanning = true;
BluetoothDiscoverer.findPrinters(ctx, new DiscoveryHandler() {
public void foundPrinter(DiscoveredPrinter device) {
if (device instanceof DiscoveredPrinterBluetooth) {
DiscoveredPrinterBluetooth btDevice = (DiscoveredPrinterBluetooth) device;
if (btDevice.friendlyName.startsWith("XXXX")) {
try {
connection = new BluetoothConnection(btDevice.address);
connection.open();
if (connection.isConnected()) {
address = btDevice.address;
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
}
}
}
}
public void discoveryFinished() {
scanning = false;
}
public void discoveryError(String arg0) {
scanning = false;
}
});
} catch (Exception ex) {
}
while (scanning) {}
return false;
}
You could do this with CountDownLatch, which might be the lightest synchronization primitive in java.util.concurrent:
private boolean findPrinter(final Context ctx) {
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
final boolean[] result = {false};
...
BluetoothDiscoverer.findPrinters(ctx, new DiscoveryHandler() {
...
public void discoveryFinished() {
result[0] = true;
latch.countDown();
}
public void discoveryError(String arg0) {
result[0] = false;
latch.countDown();
}
...
}
// before final return
// wait for 10 seconds for the response
latch.await(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
//return the result, it will return false when there is timeout
return result[0];
}
There are a bunch of ways you can do this and wait()/notify() is probably not the best since you probably want to return something from your async method. As such I suggest using something like a BlockingQueue. Here is a simplified example of how you can do this:
private boolean findPrinter(final Context ctx) {
final BlockingQueue<?> asyncResult = new SynchronousQueue<?>();
try {
BluetoothDiscoverer.findPrinters(ctx, new DiscoveryHandler() {
public void foundPrinter(DiscoveredPrinter device) {
if (device instanceof DiscoveredPrinterBluetooth) {
DiscoveredPrinterBluetooth btDevice = (DiscoveredPrinterBluetooth) device;
if (btDevice.friendlyName.startsWith("XXXX")) {
try {
connection = new BluetoothConnection(btDevice.address);
connection.open();
if (connection.isConnected()) {
address = btDevice.address;
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
}
}
}
}
public void discoveryFinished() {
asyncResult.put(true);
}
public void discoveryError(String arg0) {
asyncResult.put(arg0);
}
});
} catch (Exception ex) {
}
Object result = asyncResult.take();
if (result instanceof Boolean) {
return (Boolean) result;
} else if (result instanceof String) {
logError((String) result);
}
return false;
}
One problem with using SynchronousQueue here though is that if discoveryFinished()/discoveryError() is called more than once, then the thread executing the code asynchronously will block forever since the SynchronousQueue assumes there will be exactly one take() per every put() and will block if a put() is made without a corresponding take() or vice versa. So if in your case those methods can be called more than once you would probably use a different kind of BlockingQueue instead (see documentation).
The code below allows us to run a job while ensuring that only one job at a time can run by using ReentrantLock.
Is there any way to modify this code to run job.call() asynchronously and to return the MyConcurrentJobException to the client prior to starting the thread?
We tried wrapping the try/catch/finally block in a new Thread but the unlock and lock have to happen in the same thread so we get an IllegalMonitorException
??
final static Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
public Object runJob(String desc, Callable job, boolean wait) {
logger.info("Acquiring lock");
if (!lock.tryLock()) {
throw new MyConcurrentJobException();
}
activeJob = new JobStatus(desc);
logger.info("Lock acquired");
try {
return job.call();
} catch (MarginServiceAssertionException e) {
throw e;
} catch (MarginServiceSystemException e) {
throw e;
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new MarginServiceSystemException(e);
} finally {
activeJob = null;
logger.info("Releasing lock");
lock.unlock();
logger.info("Lock released");
}
}
You can use Semaphore instead of ReentrantLock, its permits are not bound to thread.
Something like this (not sure what you want to do with the result of job.call() in the asynchronous case):
final static Semaphore lock = new Semaphore(1);
public void runJob(String desc, Callable job, boolean wait) {
logger.info("Acquiring lock");
if (!lock.tryAcquire()) {
throw new MyConcurrentJobException();
}
startThread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
job.call();
} finally {
lock.release();
}
}
});
}
I think I am misunderstanding completely because to block and wait while doing something asynchronously doesn't make too much sense to me unless some progress can be made on the invoking thread.
Could you do something like this:
final static Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
final static ExecutorService service = Executors.newThreadPoolExecutor();
public Object runJob(String desc, Callable job, boolean wait) {
logger.info("Acquiring lock");
if (!lock.tryLock()) {
throw new MyConcurrentJobException();
}
activeJob = new JobStatus(desc);
logger.info("Lock acquired");
try {
Future<?> future = service.submit(job);
// This next line will block until the job is finished
// and also will hold onto the lock.
boolean finished = false;
Object o = null;
while(!finished) {
try {
o = future.get(300, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
finished = true;
catch(TimeOutException e) {
// Do some periodic task while waiting
// foot.tapLots();
}
}
if (o instanceof MarginServiceAssertionException) {
throw ((MargineServiceAssertionException)o);
} else if (o instanceof MargineServiceSystemException) {
throw ((MarginServiceSystemException)o);
} else if (o instanceof Exception) {
throw new MarginServiceSystemException(e);
}
} catch (... InterruptedException e) { /// catch whatever exceptions throws as part of this
/// Whatever needs to be done.
} finally {
activeJob = null;
logger.info("Releasing lock");
lock.unlock();
logger.info("Lock released");
}
}