We Keep Coding

Java Spring Runnable task with timeout

Faced the fact that when the database is unavailable, the queue grows because tasks stop running. What is the best way to set some timeout for tasks executed in method run()? May be there is some good approach with using ExecutorService?
#Service
public class AsyncWriter implements Writer, Runnable {
private LinkedBlockingQueue<Entry> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
private volatile boolean terminate = false;
private AtomicInteger completedCounter = new AtomicInteger();
#PostConstruct
private void runAsyncWriter() {
Thread async = new Thread(this);
async.setName("Writer Thread");
async.setPriority(2);
async.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (!terminate) {
try {
Entry entry = queue.take();
dao.save(entry);
completedCounter.incrementAndGet();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
#Override
public void write(Entry entry) {
queue.add(entry);
}
}

Maybe you can try RxJava
https://www.baeldung.com/rx-java
And you can set your aync funtions
Timeout in RxJava

Calling a method with multiple argument

I've been using the Java 8 Streams for a while. I came across a situation where I need to stream through a List and pass each element to a method of a class that is not static.
List<String> emps = new ArrayList<>();
emps.add("ABC");
emps.add("DEF");
emps.add("GHI");
I want to call the "start" method of EmpDataGenerator.
EmpDataGenerator generator = new EmpDataGenerator(
Executors.newFixedThreadPool(emps.size()));
I have tried this, but it's not working
emps.stream().map(e-> generator.start(e));
public class EmpDataGenerator {
// Used to signal a graceful shutdown
private volatile boolean stop = false;
private final ExecutorService executor;
public EmpDataGenerator(ExecutorService executor) {
this.executor = executor;
}
public void start(String name ) {
Runnable generator = () -> {
try {
while (!stop) {
//do some processing
}
System.out.println("Broke while loop, stop " + stop);
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("EmpDataGenerator thread caught an exception and halted!");
throw e;
}
};
executor.execute(generator);
}
public void stop() {
stop = true;
// The shutdown the executor (after waiting a bit to be nice)
try {
executor.awaitTermination(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Purposely ignore any InterruptedException
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}

A map must take an input and transform it to something. The start method is void.
There is no need for streams here. A simple forEach should do.
emps.forEach(e-> generator.start(e));
or
emps.forEach(generator::start);

SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor with a queue

I have a need to run some threads concurrently, but need to force each process to run in a new Thread (this is due to some ThreadLocal bleed that I don't have full control over). To do so, I have been using the SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor. However, the issue with this is that it doesn't maintain a queue that allows new tasks to be submitted once it's reached the concurrency limit. What I really need to do is have functionality like the SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor but where tasks can still be submitted even after the concurrency limit has been reached - I just want those tasks to wait in the queue until another slot frees up. This is what I have right now:
SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor taskExecutor = new SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor();
taskExecutor.setConcurrencyLimit(maxThreads);
return taskExecutor;
Is there some out-of-the-box solution for this, or do I need to write something custom?

To ensure you need to execute every task in a new Thread, You are basically against use of any ThreadPool (ThreadLocal behavior in a ThreadPool is something you need to get rid of, sooner or later).
To overcome this, you can simply produce something like this,
class ThreadPerTaskExecutor implements Executor {
public void execute(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
which executes the Runnable always in a new Thread.
Coming to a crude implementation, We can do something like
final Executor executor = new ThreadPerTaskExecutor();
final ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
service.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println("Executed inside Thread pool with concurrency level 3"
+ Thread.currentThread().toString());
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(3000); //Some expensive operations here.
System.out.println(
"Executed inside new Thread always" + Thread.currentThread().toString());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
}
This can be improved with lambdas as well after Java 8. Hope this sheds the basic idea.

Is there some out-of-the-box solution for this, or do I need to write something custom?
I think there is no out-of-the-box solution for this, and you need to write your own code for this.
You can extend the SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor for simpler/quicker implementation. Example:
public class SimpleAsyncQueueTaskExecutor extends SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor {
private Queue<Runnable> queue = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Runnable>();
private AtomicInteger concurrencyValue = new AtomicInteger(0);
private void checkAndExecuteFromQueue() {
int count = concurrencyValue.get();
if (isThrottleActive() && !queue.isEmpty() &&
(count < getConcurrencyLimit())) {
Runnable task = queue.poll();
concurrencyValue.incrementAndGet();
doExecute(new ConcurrencyThrottlingRunnable(task));
}
}
private void afterExecute(Runnable task) {
queue.remove(task);
concurrencyValue.decrementAndGet();
// Check and execute other tasks
checkAndExecuteFromQueue();
}
#Override
public void execute(Runnable task, long startTimeout) {
Assert.notNull(task, "Runnable must not be null");
if (isThrottleActive() && startTimeout > TIMEOUT_IMMEDIATE) {
queue.offer(task);
checkAndExecuteFromQueue();
} else {
doExecute(task);
}
}
private class ConcurrencyThrottlingRunnable implements Runnable {
private final Runnable target;
public ConcurrencyThrottlingRunnable(Runnable target) {
this.target = target;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
this.target.run();
}
finally {
afterExecute(this.target);
}
}
}
This example code just add a queue, and override the execute method.
Hope this help.

handle multiple infinite tasks in a single thread? P.S run one task at a time and control its task behavior(i.e starting/stoping task) from outside

I want to make a single thread which would contain 3 infinite tasks.
I want one task to run at a time and start/stop running task when required.
For example first I want task 1 to run, then I want task 2 to run but after stopping task 1 and again I want task 1 to run but after stopping of task 2 and so on.
Infinite task needs to check some condition and if that condition is satisfied perform some operations and if not satisfied sleep for few seconds and after wake up perform the above same operations again.
Infinite Runnable task looks some thing like this:
new Runnable(){
while(1){
if(TaskQueue.getInstance().size()<= 100){
TaskQueue.getInstance().push("add command to the end of queue");
}else{
try {
Thread.sleep(10000);
}catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Any help would be appreciated?
Edit : I modified my question. I want a continuous single running thread(some thing like looper ) to monitor 3 infinite tasks and control this single continuous running thread tasks from outside.

Use this for start/stop thread in real-time:
class MyThread extends Thread {
private volatile boolean running = true; // Run unless told to pause
...
#Override
public void run() {
// Only keep painting while "running" is true
// This is a crude implementation of pausing the thread
while (true) {
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
return;
}
if (running) {
//Your code
} else yield;
}
}
public void pauseThread() throws InterruptedException {
running = false;
}
public void resumeThread() {
running = true;
}
}
For pause thread use this:
myThread.pauseThread();
For resume thread use this:
myThread.resumeThread();
For stop thread use this (Not recommended):
myThread.stop();
For currently stop thread use this:
myThread.interrupt();

You must use a class like Thread that already implements Runnable.
new Thread(){....};
And the way it works it's:
Thread t = new Thread(){.....};
t.start();
t.stop();

You could also initialize a new thread, like:
Thread exampleThread = new thread();
After this you can start it at any point in your code by:
exampleThread.start();

you can use Semaphore,
to Manage the amount of signal.
private final static Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(0);
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
//入口
threadTest();
}
public static void thread1() {
try{
//…… some code
}
finally{
semaphore.release();
}
}
public static void thread2() {
semaphore.acquire(1);
}
The question is my first answer,thanks.

I finally made my task scheduler. The API of which looks something like this:
TaskScheduler taskScheduler = TaskScheduler.getInstance();
taskScheduler.startTaskOne();
taskScheduler.stopTaskOne();
taskScheduler.startTaskTwo();
taskScheduler.stopTaskTwo();
Runs one task at a time (because I used Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor()).
We can control the execution of the task from outside:
public class TaskScheduler {
private static ExecutorService mTaskRunningService;
private static TaskScheduler mInstance;
private Future mFirstTaskFuture = null;
private Future mSecondTaskFuture = null;
static {
configure();
}
private static void configure() {
mTaskRunningService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
}
public static TaskScheduler getInstance() {
if (mInstance == null) {
mInstance = new TaskScheduler();
}
return mInstance;
}
private Runnable mTaskOneRunnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
/** stop this single thread (i.e executing one task at time) service if this thread is interrupted
* from outside because documentation of {#link java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor#shutdownNow()}
* says we need to do this*/
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
return;
}
// task one work.......
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
private Runnable mTaskTwoRunnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
/** stop this single thread (i.e executing one task at time) service if this thread is interrupted
* from outside because documentation of {#link java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor#shutdownNow()}
* says we need to do this*/
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
return;
}
// task two work......
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
public synchronized void startTaskOne() {
if (mFirstTaskFuture == null) {
// start executing runnable
mFirstTaskFuture = mTaskRunningService.submit(mTaskOneRunnable);
}
}
public synchronized boolean stopTaskOne() {
if (mFirstTaskFuture != null) {
// stop general reading thread
mFirstTaskFuture.cancel(true);
// cancel status
boolean status = mFirstTaskFuture.isDone();
// assign null because startTaskOne() again be called
mGeneralFuture = null;
return status;
}
return true;
}
public synchronized void startTaskTwo() {
if (mSecondTaskFuture == null) {
// start executing runnable
mSecondTaskFuture = mTaskRunningService.submit(mTaskTwoRunnable);
}
}
public synchronized boolean stopTaskTwo() {
if (mSecondTaskFuture != null) {
// clear task queue
mTaskQueue.clearTaskQueue();
// stop 22 probes reading thread
mSecondTaskFuture.cancel(true);
// cancel status
boolean status = mSecondTaskFuture.isDone();
// assign null because startTaskTwo() again be called
mSecondTaskFuture = null;
return status;
}
return true;
}
}

Java Multithreading doesn't seem to be correctly working

I have a class which processes something. I'm trying to run a number of instances of this class in parallel.
However, I'm not sure if in TaskManager.startAll(), when I call r.go(), whether this would cause r to start running in its own thread, or within the main thread?
The total execution time that I'm getting seems to be very high, and despite my attempts at optimizing, nothing seems to be having any effect. Also, if I run a profiler on my project in Netbeans, it shows all the threads as sleeping. So I'd like to know if I'm doing something wrong?
This is the structure of the class:
public class TaskRunner implements Runnable {
private boolean isRunning = false;
public void run() {
while(true) {
while (! running) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
process();
}
}
public void go() {
isRunning = true;
}
public void stop() {
isRunning = false;
}
private void process() {
//Do some number crunching and processing here
}
}
Here's how these are being run / managed:
public class TaskManager {
private ArrayList<TaskRunner> runners = new ArrayList<>();
public TaskManager() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
TaskRunner r = new TaskRunner();
new Thread(r).start();
runners.add(r);
}
}
public void startAll() {
for (TaskRunner r : runners) {
r.go();
}
}
}

Indeed, you are not "doing it right." If you want to create a multi-threaded Java application, the place to start is with the java.util.concurrent package.
It appears from your code that you want to run ten tasks in parallel. I assume that after "number crunching and processing," you'll want to aggregate the results and do something with them in the main thread. For this, the invokeAll() method of ExecutorService works well.
First, implement Callable to do the work you show in your process() method.
final class YourTask implements Callable<YourResults> {
private final YourInput input;
YourTask(YourInput input) {
this.input = input;
}
#Override
public YourResults call()
throws Exception
{
/* Do some number crunching and processing here. */
return new YourResults(...);
}
}
Then create your tasks and run them. This would take the place of your main() method:
Collection<Callable<YourResults>> tasks = new List<>(inputs.size());
for (YourInput i : inputs)
tasks.add(new YourTask(i));
ExecutorService workers = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
/* The next call blocks while the worker threads complete all tasks. */
List<Future<YourResult>> results = workers.invokeAll(tasks);
workers.shutdown();
for (Future<YourResult> f : results) {
YourResult r = f.get();
/* Do whatever it is you do with the results. */
...
}

However, I'm not sure if in TaskManager.startAll(), when I call r.go(), whether this would cause r to start running in its own thread, or within the main thread?
So my first comment is that you should make isRunning be volatile since it is being shared between threads. If the threads are not starting when it goes to true (or seem to be delayed in starting) then I suspect that's your problem. volatile provides memory synchronization between the threads so the thread that calls go() and makes a change to isRunning will be seen immediately by the thread waiting for the change.
Instead of spinning like this, I would use wait/notify:
// this synchronizes on the instance of `TaskRunner`
synchronized (this) {
// always do your wait in a while loop to protect against spurious wakeups
while (!isRunning && !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
try {
// wait until the notify is called on this object
this.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Then in the go() method you should do the following. stop() would be similar.
public void go() {
synchronized (this) {
isRunning = true;
this.notifyAll();
}
}
Notice that you should handle thread interrupts carefully. Test for isInterrupted() in the while running loop and re-interrupt a thread when InterruptedException is thrown is always a good pattern.
The total execution time that I'm getting seems to be very high, and despite my attempts at optimizing, nothing seems to be having any effect. Also, if I run a profiler on my project in Netbeans, it shows all the threads as sleeping.
So although the threads are mostly sleeping, they are still each looping 1000 times a second because of your Thread.sleep(1). If you increased the time sleeping (after making isRunning be volatile) they would loop less but the right mechanism is to use the wait/notify to signal the thread.

Awful solution, terrible. first I highly recommend you start reading some tutorial like [this]
Second, if threads should wait for a signal to go for some job, so why just don't you wait them!!!!!, something like this
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class TaskManager
{
//////////////////////
public volatile static Signal wait=new Signal();
//////////////////////
private ArrayList<TaskRunner> runners = new ArrayList<>();
public TaskManager()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
TaskRunner r = new TaskRunner();
new Thread(r).start();
runners.add(r);
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
startAll();
Thread.sleep(1000);
pauseAll();
Thread.sleep(1000);
startAll();
Thread.sleep(1000);
haltAll();System.out.println("DONE!");
}catch(Exception ex){}
}
public void startAll()
{
synchronized(wait){
wait.setRun(true);;
wait.notifyAll();
}
}
public void pauseAll(){
wait.setRun(false);
}
public void haltAll(){
for(TaskRunner tx:runners){tx.halt();}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new TaskManager();
}
}
class TaskRunner implements Runnable
{
private Thread thisThread;
private volatile boolean run=true;
public void run()
{
thisThread=Thread.currentThread();
while(run){
if(!TaskManager.wait.isRun()){
synchronized(TaskManager.wait)
{
if(!TaskManager.wait.isRun()){
System.out.println("Wait!...");
try
{
TaskManager.wait.wait();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
break;
}
}
}}
process();
}
}
private double r=Math.random();
private void process(){System.out.println(r);try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO: handle exception
}}
public void halt(){run=false;thisThread.interrupt();}
}
class Signal{
private boolean run=false;
public boolean isRun() {
return run;
}
public void setRun(boolean run) {
this.run = run;
}
}
in above sample, all runners works till the Signal run boolean is true, and simple TaskManager class set tit as false for every time it needs to pause the threads. and about the halt, it just set the shutdown(run) flag to false, and also interrupt the thread because of if thread is in wait state.
I hope I could prove your solution is like dream-on story, and also could explained enough about my solution.
have a good parallel application :)