We Keep Coding

Displaying threads alternatively in JAVA

I want to display this two threads alternatively like that :
Thread 1
Thread 0
Thread 1
Thread 0
...
That's the basic code from where I started, I tried with wait() notify() Methods but I couldn't get the result wanted.
class Task extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
double dure = Math.random()*200 ;
sleep((long) dure);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Task t1 = new Task() ;
Task t2 = new Task() ;
t1.start();
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
} ```

I see two solutions:
Busy Wait
Each thread wait before printing. And release when the condition is true. I used AtomicInteger for indexToPrint to make this value sync for every thread.
This solution works with n number of threads.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
class Task extends Thread {
final static private AtomicInteger indexToPrint = new AtomicInteger(0);
static private int threadNumber = 0;
final private int index;
/**
*
*/
public Task() {
index = threadNumber++;
}
private int nextIndex() {
return (index + 1) % threadNumber;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
double dure = Math.random()*200 ;
sleep((long) dure);
while (indexToPrint.get() != index) {
sleep((long) 10);
}
indexToPrint.set(nextIndex());
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
}
wait and notify
A bit more complex to understand, but no useless CPU use. Let's explain how the synchronized block synchronized (indexToPrint) {...} works.
The block is synchronized monitoring the static object indexToPrint. This object is static (common to every thread), so only one thread can simultaneously enter this block.
When one thread enter the block, if its index is different from indexToPrint then the thread is stopped with wait() making it possible for another thread to enter the block. Else, the thread name is printed, the indexToPrint is updated to next thread index and all thread are waken up with notifyAll(). Finally, it left the block.
All threads waiting are now awake, and the actual thread left the block. So one thread can try again to print.
It's important to understand that when a thread is put to wait and then notify, it runs exactly where it was stopped. Here, a thread can be stopped at two positions: before the synchronized block and at the wait call.
The while is very essential here. All thread are waking up with notifyAll(), so after waking up they should test themselves again.
You can find a good documentation here.
The code is based on the previous one. With same use of indexToPrint.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
class Task extends Thread {
static private final AtomicInteger indexToPrint = new AtomicInteger(0);
static private int threadNumber = 0;
final private int index;
final private static ArrayList<Task> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
/**
*
*/
public Task() {
index = threadNumber++;
tasks.add(this);
}
private int nextIndex() {
return (index + 1) % threadNumber;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
double dure = Math.random()*200 ;
sleep((long) dure);
synchronized (indexToPrint) {
while (indexToPrint.get() != index) {
indexToPrint.wait();
}
indexToPrint.set(nextIndex());
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
indexToPrint.notifyAll();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

The random sleep time can cause the unexpected result also within the main method making the main thread sleep between the start of Thread1 and Thread2 can help you to know who is the first thread that will start the print task , after that you should give the right sleep time inside the task to give the Threads the possibility to prints alternatively .
class Task extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
sleep(2000);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Task t1 = new Task() ;
Task t2 = new Task() ;
t1.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
t2.start();
}
}

How wait() and notifyAll() prevents deadlock in given code snippet?

Here is the code snippet:
public class PrintEvenOdd
public static class SynchronizedThreadMonitor {
public final static boolean ODD_TURN = true;
public final static boolean EVEN_TURN = false;
private boolean turn = ODD_TURN;
public synchronized void waitTurn(boolean oldTurn) {
while (turn != oldTurn) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException in wait(): " + e);
}
}
}
public synchronized void toggleTurn(){
turn ^= true;
notify();
}
}
public static class OddThread extends Thread {
private final SynchronizedThreadMonitor monitor;
public OddThread(SynchronizedThreadMonitor monitor) {
this.monitor = monitor;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i=1; i<=100; i+=2) {
monitor.waitTurn(SynchronizedThreadMonitor.ODD_TURN);
System.out.println("i= " + i);
monitor.toggleTurn();
}
}
}
public static class EvenThread extends Thread {
private final SynchronizedThreadMonitor monitor;
public EvenThread(SynchronizedThreadMonitor monitor) {
this.monitor = monitor;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i=2; i<=100; i+=2) {
monitor.waitTurn(SynchronizedThreadMonitor.EVEN_TURN);
System.out.println("i= " + i);
monitor.toggleTurn();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
SynchronizedThreadMonitor monitor = new SynchronizedThreadMonitor();
Thread t1 = new OddThread(monitor);
Thread t2 = new EvenThread(monitor);
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
}
Using 2 threads to print numbers. One prints odd numbers and another prints even numbers.
In my understanding, both waitTurn and toggleTurn share the same LOCK of the instance. So if one holds the LOCK, the other method could not run. So if EvenThread first invokes waitTurn method and wait for the turn change, it holds the LOCK, then OddThread could not enter the toggleTurn method and set the turn. This should lead to a deadlock as per my understanding. But it did not happen.
Can someone please explain why the deadlock did not happen?

"So IF EvenThread first run waitTurn method and wait for the turn change, it holds the LOCK, the OddThread could NOT enter the toggleTurn method"
It holds the LOCK only small period of time, until method wait() is invoked. Method wait() releases the LOCK and allows another thread to enter the critical section.

Using threads to modify an object

I'm new to threads. I wanted to get two threads to increment an integer to a certain value. because int type is immutable, I switched to atomic integer. I also tried to wrap an int to a class and that didn't work either. I also tried static/volatile int and that didn't work. I also tried to use fairness policy. The main issue is that "counterObj" is not incremented correctly and is still set to 0 even though it is injected to both threads.
My expected running behavior:
thread value
thread 0 0
thread 1 1
thread 0 2
...
What I wrote so far:
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Application app = new Application();
try {
app.launch();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void launch() throws InterruptedException {
int increments = 100;
AtomicInteger counterObj = new AtomicInteger(0);
CounterThread th1 = new CounterThread("1", counterObj, increments);
CounterThread th2 = new CounterThread("2", counterObj, increments);
th1.start();
th2.start();
System.out.println(counterObj.get());
}
}
and
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class CounterThread implements Runnable {
private final String threadID;
private AtomicInteger counterObj;
private int bound;
public CounterThread(String threadID, AtomicInteger counter, int bound) {
this.threadID = threadID;
this.counterObj = counter;
this.bound = bound;
}
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
while (counterObj.get() < bound) {
synchronized (this) {
counterObj.incrementAndGet();
}
}
System.out.println("Thread " + threadID + " finished");
}
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
Thread thread = new Thread(this, threadID);
thread.join();
thread.start();
}
}
Cheers!

I think your program is exiting before your threads get a chance to do anything (probably due to the ordering of your starts and joins. I would move your thread starting logic into your main(or launch) method. Something like the following.
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new MyCounterRunnable("1", counterObj, increments));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new MyCounterRunnable("2", counterObj, increments));
Then, in your main, you need to call join after starting the threads...as follows:
thread1.start(); // starts first thread.
thread2.start(); // starts second thread.
thread1.join(); // don't let main exit until thread 1 is done.
thread2.join(); // don't let main exit until thread 2 is done.

What you really are wanting is for only one thread to increment an int at a time.
The int variable is the resource you want in the synchronized block, so the different threads can increment it one at a time.
This can be done using syncrhonize alone.
Disclaimer: I didn't run the code so it could have some typo or Exceptions to be removed from the Application class.
public class Application {
private int theVar = 0;
private int increments = 100;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Application app = new Application();
try {
app.launch();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public synchronized addOne(){
this.theVar++;
}
private void launch() throws InterruptedException {
Runnable counter1 = new Counter(this, increments), counter2 = new Counter(this, increments);
Thread t1 = new Thread(counter1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(counter2);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
A counter class
public class Counter implements Runnable{
private Application app;
int rounds = -1;
public Counter(Application app, rounds){
this.app = app;
this.rounds = rounds;
}
public void run(){
while(int i=0; i<rounds; i++){
this.app.addOne();
}
}
}

AtomicInteger takes care of atomicity itself, so you shouldn't need to use synchronized -- but only if you play by the rules, and do your atomic operations in one call.
You're failing to do this, because you call counterObj.get() then depending on the result counterObj.incrementAndGet(). You need to avoid this because you want the check and the update to be part of the same atomic chunk of work.
You can get close with:
while(counterObj.incrementAndGet() < bound) {} ;
But this will always increment at least once, which may be once too many.
Slightly more involved:
IntUnaryOperator incrementWithLimit = x ->
( x < bound ? x + 1 : x );
while(counterObj.updateAndGet(incrementWithLimit) < bound) {};
That is, we've created a function that increments a number only if it's lower than bound, and we tell AtomicInteger to apply that.

There are a couple of issues with your code:
Thread.join method works only if the thread has started, else it does nothing. So you must reorder your code, but if you just move the join method after start, when starting the first thread by calling CounterThread.start, the main thread will wait until the started thread has finished, blocked in the Thread.join method, and only then will continue to starting the second one. A solution is to make an additional method in the CounterThread class, that will be called after both threads have been started:
public void waitFinish() throws InterruptedException {
thread.join();
}
synchronized (this) is synchronizing on the CounterThread instance that has been created when you called new CounterThread(...), but you have two instances so each will be synchronizing on a different object. For synchronized to work, you need to use a common instance of an object, in this case you can use the shared counterObj.
Only the AtomicInteger methods are guaranteed to be thread safe, so after you check if the bound has been reached outside the synchronized block, when entering the synchronized block the value can already be changed by another thread. So you need to do a recheck inside the synchronized block OR to first synchronize on the shared lock(counterObj) before the check and increment.
while (true) {
synchronized (counterObj) {
if (counterObj.get() < bound)
counterObj.incrementAndGet();
else break;
}
}
Note that the AtomicInteger class synchronized methods aren't helping now, but because it is a mutable object, it helps to use it as a shared lock. If you used an Integer instead, being immutable, a new instance will have been created when you incremented it. So now, it's only function is a wrapper holding the integer result.
Putting it all together:
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Application app = new Application();
try {
app.launch();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void launch() throws InterruptedException {
int increments = 100;
AtomicInteger counterObj = new AtomicInteger(0);
CounterThread th1 = new CounterThread("1", counterObj, increments);
CounterThread th2 = new CounterThread("2", counterObj, increments);
th1.start();
th2.start();
th1.waitFinish();
th2.waitFinish();
System.out.println(counterObj.get());
}
}
public class CounterThread implements Runnable {
private final String threadID;
private AtomicInteger counterObj;
private int bound;
private Thread thread;
public CounterThread(String threadID, AtomicInteger counter, int bound) {
this.threadID = threadID;
this.counterObj = counter;
this.bound = bound;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (counterObj) {
if (counterObj.get() < bound)
counterObj.incrementAndGet();
else break;
}
}
System.out.println("Thread " + threadID + " finished");
}
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
thread = new Thread(this, threadID);
thread.start();
}
public void waitFinish() throws InterruptedException {
thread.join();
}
}

I've included a double check on the AtomicInteger, this appears to be what you've been trying to accomplish.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class DualCounters{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
AtomicInteger i = new AtomicInteger(0);
int bounds = 3;
Thread a = new Thread(()->{
int last = 0;
while(i.get()<bounds){
synchronized(i){
if(i.get()<bounds){
last = i.getAndIncrement();
}
}
}
System.out.println("a last " + last);
});
Thread b = new Thread(()->{
int last = 0;
while(i.get()<bounds){
synchronized(i){
if(i.get()<bounds){
last = i.getAndIncrement();
}
}
}
System.out.println("b last " + last);
});
a.start();
b.start();
a.join();
b.join();
System.out.println(i.get() + " afterwards");
}
}
The double check is a broken concept in java, the AtomicInteger offers tools for accomplishing this without any synchronization.
int a;
while((a = i.getAndIncrement())<bounds){
...
}
Now a will never be greater than bounds inside of the while loop. When the loop is finished i and a could have a value greater than bounds.
If that was an issue, there is always the other method getAndUpdate
while((a = i.getAndUpdate(i->i<bounds?i+1:i)<bounds){
...
}

Why is it important to make fields private when working with concurrency?

I'm reading Thinking in JAVA (Ed4, by Bruce Eckel), which says:
Note that it’s especially important to make fields private when
working with concurrency; otherwise the synchronized keyword cannot
prevent another task from accessing a field directly, and thus
producing collisions.
I am confused and finally get this demo:
public class SimpleSerial {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
ShareObject so = new ShareObject();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadOperation(so, "add"));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadOperation(so, "sub"));
thread1.setDaemon(true);
thread2.setDaemon(true);
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
System.out.println("Press Enter to stop");
System.in.read();
System.out.println("Now, a=" + so.a + " b=" + so.b);
}
}
class ThreadOperation implements Runnable {
private String operation;
private ShareObject so;
public ThreadOperation(ShareObject so, String oper) {
this.operation = oper;
this.so = so;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (operation.equals("add")) {
so.add();
} else {
so.sub();
}
}
}
}
class ShareObject {
int a = 100;
int b = 100;
public synchronized void add() {
++a;
++b;
}
public synchronized void sub() {
--a;
--b;
}
}
Every time the values of a and b are different. So why?
The demo also mentioned if the thread sleep() for short time, i.e., re-write the run() method in ThreadOperation:
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (operation.equals("add")) {
so.add();
} else {
so.sub();
}
try {
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
then values of a and b are the same.
So again, Why? What happens behind sleep()?

With sleep() it becomes probable that the println() executes while the threads are sleeping. The program is still very not thread-safe.
You could fix it by adding a synchronized print() method to SharedObject eg:
public synchronized void print() {
System.out.println("Now, a=" + a + " b=" + b);
}
and calling that on the last line of main instead of the current unsynchronized accesses.

A good small example to demonstrate wait() and notify() method in java

Can anybody please provide me a good small example demonstrate wait() and notify() functionality in java. I've tried with the below piece of code but it's not showing what i expected.
public class WaitDemo {
int i = 10;
int display() {
System.out.println("Lexmark");
i++;
return i;
}
}
public class ClassDemo1 extends Thread {
private WaitDemo wd = new WaitDemo();
public static void main(String[] args) {
ClassDemo1 cd1 = new ClassDemo1();
ClassDemo1 cd2 = new ClassDemo1();
cd1.setName("Europe");
cd2.setName("America");
cd1.start();
cd2.start();
}
synchronized void display() {
System.out.println("Hello");
notifyAll();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
{
notify();
System.out.println("The thread is " + currentThread().getName());
wait();
System.out.println("The value is " + wd.display());
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
The issue is that the method in the class WaitDemo is not getting executed and as per my idea the SOP after wait() should execute. Please help me out on this.

You've got two levels of braces { in your try block. If you remove the inner set (which doesn't appear to do anything), does that fix the problem?
There are several examples around, all of which demonstrate the use. The last link is a set of results that can help you out. If you need more specific things, let me know what it is that your app is trying to do, and I can try to find examples that are more specific to your situation.
http://www.javamex.com/tutorials/wait_notify_how_to.shtml
http://www.java-samples.com/showtutorial.php?tutorialid=306
http://www.coderanch.com/t/234235/threads/java/Wait-Example
https://www.google.com/search?q=wait%28%29+example+java&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Below is an example of wait & notify in the Object class. The customer is trying to withdraw money of value 2000 but the account is having only 1000 so it has to wait for the deposit. Once the deposit is made, then the customer will be able to withdraw the amount. Until the deposit is made, the customer will be waiting.
class Cust {
private int totalAmount = 1000;
public synchronized void withdrawal(int amount) {
System.out.println("Total amount " + totalAmount + " withdrawing amount " + amount);
while (this.totalAmount < amount) {
System.out.println("not enough amount..waiting for deposit..");
try { wait(); } catch (Exception e) {}
}
this.totalAmount -= amount;
System.out.println("Withdrawal successful.. Remaining balance is "+totalAmount);
}
public synchronized void deposit(int amount){
System.out.println("Depositing amount "+amount);
this.totalAmount += amount;
System.out.println("deposit completed...and Now totalAmount is " + this.totalAmount);
notify();
}
}
class Depo implements Runnable {
Cust c; int depo;
Depo(Cust c, int depo){
this.c = c;
this.depo = depo;
}
#Override
public void run() {
c.deposit(depo);
}
}
class Withdrawal implements Runnable {
Cust c; int with;
Withdrawal(Cust c, int with){
this.c = c;
this.with = with;
}
#Override
public void run() {
c.withdrawal(with);
}
}
public class ObjectWaitExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Cust c = new Cust();
Thread w = new Thread(new Withdrawal(c, 2000));
Thread d1 = new Thread(new Depo(c, 50));
Thread d2 = new Thread(new Depo(c, 150));
Thread d3 = new Thread(new Depo(c, 900));
w.start();
d1.start();
d2.start();
d3.start();
}
}

I created two threads one for printing odd numbers (OddThread) and another for even numbers (EvenThread). Inside the run method of each of the threads I used the shared object of class Print to call printOdd() and printEven() for the Odd and EvenThread respectively. I made the shared object of Print static so that only one copy is made. Now synchronizing on the Print object I used a Boolean flag such that when the odd thread printed an odd number it will be sent into the waiting state and the at the same time notifying the even thread to execute. The logic is written in such a way that the odd thread will always print the odd number first no matter what, as the flag is set to false initially preventing the even thread to execute and sending it to a waiting state.
package com.amardeep.test;
public class ThreadDemo {
// Shared object
static Print print = new Print();
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Thread(new OddThread()).start();
new Thread(new EvenThread()).start();
}
}
class EvenThread implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
ThreadDemo.print.printEven();
}
}
class OddThread implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
ThreadDemo.print.printOdd();
}
}
class Print {
public volatile boolean flag = false;
public synchronized void printEven() {
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
if (!flag) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
} else {
if (i % 2 == 0) {
System.out.println("from even " + i);
flag = false;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
public synchronized void printOdd() {
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
if (flag) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
} else {
if (i % 2 != 0) {
System.out.println("from odd " + i);
flag = true;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
}
output:-
from odd 1
from even 2
from odd 3
from even 4
from odd 5
from even 6
from odd 7
from even 8
from odd 9
from even 10

Your problem is that you are creating two instances of the Thread class. Thus when the wait() is called, it is on two different instances, neither of which has another thread that is in contention for your monitor, nor is there another thread to call notifyAll() to wake the thread from its wait state.
Thus each thread you have started will wait forever (or until interrupted for some other reason).
You want to have multiple threads accessing the same monitor, so start by trying to code something in which the code in question is not actually a thread, but is simply being used by a thread.
#normalocity has already provided links to multiple examples.

I just updated this answer to include an SCCE.
The workers call pauseIfNeeded on the WorkerPauseManager. If the manager is paused when the worker thread calls pauseIfNeeded(), we call wait(), which tells the calling thread to wait until a different thread calls notify() or notifyAll() on the object being waited on. This happens when the Swing Event Dispatch Thread calls play() on the manager, which in turn calls notifyAll().
Note that you must have a synchronized lock on the object you are calling wait() or notify() on. Since the methods in WorkerPauseManager are synchronized, all the synchronized methods are getting a synchronized lock on the WorkerPauseManager itself.
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.event.ActionEvent;
/**
* #author sbarnum
*/
public class WorkerPauseManagerTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final WorkerPauseManager pauseManager = new WorkerPauseManager();
new Worker("Worker 1", pauseManager).start();
new Worker("Worker 2", pauseManager).start();
SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
JToggleButton playPauseButton = new JToggleButton(new AbstractAction("Pause") {
public void actionPerformed(final ActionEvent e) {
JToggleButton source = (JToggleButton) e.getSource();
if (source.isSelected()) {
pauseManager.start();
source.setText("Pause");
} else {
pauseManager.pause();
source.setText("Play");
}
}
});
playPauseButton.setSelected(true); // already running
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, playPauseButton, "WorkerPauseManager Demo", JOptionPane.PLAIN_MESSAGE);
System.exit(0);
}
});
}
private static class Worker extends Thread {
final String name;
final WorkerPauseManager pauseManager;
public Worker(final String name, final WorkerPauseManager pauseManager) {
this.name = name;
this.pauseManager = pauseManager;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
try {
pauseManager.pauseIfNeeded();
System.out.println(name + " is running");
Thread.sleep(1000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
}
public static final class WorkerPauseManager {
private boolean paused;
public synchronized void pauseIfNeeded() throws InterruptedException {
if (paused) wait();
}
public synchronized void pause() {
this.paused = true;
}
public synchronized void start() {
this.paused = false;
notifyAll();
}
}
}

What wait method does is , when some thread executed a synchronized block by locking some object (we call that object is "a") , then inside that synchronized block when the thread executed the wait method of object "a" like this
A a = new A (); // some class object call "a"
synchronized (a){
a.wait ();//exceptions must be handled
}
Then the a object will release and the thread has to go to the wait state until it has been release from that state.
and anothet thread now can use the a object beacause its a release object. so if another thread locked that object and it executed the notify method from that object like
a.notify ()
Then one of a thread of the threads that went to wait state by object "a" can be released from the wait state. Other wise when call the notifyAll then the all the thread objects will release from that state.

/*
* the below program is like
* tread t1 will first run , and it comes to "notify()" method
* there are no threds waiting bcoz this is the first thread.
* so it will not invoke any other threads. next step is "wait()" method
*will be called and the thread t1 in waiting state. next stament
* "System.out.println("The value is ..."+wd.display());" will not be executed
* because thread t1 is in waiting state.
*
* thread t2 will run ,and it comes to "notify()" method ,there is already
* thread t1 is in waiting state ,then it will be invoked.now thread t1 will
* continue execution and it prints the statement "System.out.println("The value is ..."+wd.display())"
* and thread t2 will be in waiting state now.
*
* if you uncomment "notifyAll()" method then, after t1 thread completes its execution
*then immediately "notifyAll()" method will be called,by that time thread t2 is
* already in waiting state , then thread t2 will be invoked and continues execution.
*or
* if any other threadds are in waiting state all those threads will be invoked.
*/
package threadsex;
/**
*
* #author MaheshM
*/
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public class WaitNotifyNotifyAllDemo implements Runnable {
WaitDemo wd = new WaitDemo();
public static void main(String[] args) {
WaitNotifyNotifyAllDemo cd1 = new WaitNotifyNotifyAllDemo();
Thread t1 = new Thread(cd1);
t1.setName("mahi1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(cd1);
t2.setName("mahi2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
System.out.println("The thread is=" +
Thread.currentThread().getName());
notify();
wait();
System.out.println("The value is ..." + wd.display());
// notifyAll();
} catch (Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}