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

How do javafx multithreading execute sequentially?

I don't know if there are any other good ways to achieve the results I want, thank you.
I have a requirement, according to the URL, create multiple webview threads, and execute them in order, such as thread execution, then trigger thread two execution, and so on, I use the synchronized (lobject) method, but in JAVAfx encountered a problem, the code is as follows:
public class LockObject {
public int orderNum = 1;
public final static int MaxValue=9;
public LockObject(int orderNum){
this.orderNum = orderNum;
}
}
public class DownloadThread extends Thread{
private LockObject lobject;
private int printNum =0;
private String url;
public DownloadThread(LockObject lobject,int printNum,String url){
this.lobject=lobject;
this.printNum = printNum;
this.url = url;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(lobject){
while(lobject.orderNum <= lobject.MaxValue){
if(lobject.orderNum == printNum){
System.out.print(printNum);
Platform.runLater(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
webView.getEngine().load(url);
webView.getEngine().getLoadWorker().stateProperty().addListener(new ChangeListener<Worker.State>() {
#Override
public void changed(ObservableValue<? extends Worker.State> observable, Worker.State oldValue, Worker.State newValue) {
if (newValue == Worker.State.SUCCEEDED) {
try {
//xxxxx
// java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
lobject.notifyAll();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
}
});
lobject.orderNum++;
if(lobject.orderNum==downloadThreads.length){
saveCsvFile(goodCSVS);
}
//lobject.notifyAll(); is ok
}else{
try {
lobject.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
}
Place of call
private DownloadThread[] downloadThreads;
LockObject lobject = new LockObject(1);
downloadThreads = new DownloadThread[tableView.getItems().size()];
for (int i = 0; i < tableView.getItems().size(); i++) {
UrlModel item = tableView.getItems().get(i);
downloadThreads[i] = new DownloadThread(lobject,tableView.getItems().size()-i,item.getLink());
downloadThreads[i].start();
}
Calling lobject.notifyAll() in the run method in Platform.runLater will report an IllegalMonitorStateException. After the address is processed, I want to wake up the next thread to execute.

If you need to execute multiple tasks in order, there's no need to create multiple threads. Just using a single thread will guarantee the next task only executes after the previous one has completed. You should also consider using a CountDownLatch instead of synchronizing on an object.
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
try {
for (UrlModel model : tableView.getItems()) {
executor.submit(() -> {
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Platform.runLater(() -> {
engine.load(model.getLink())
engine.getLoadWorker().runningProperty().addListener((obs, ov, nv) -> {
if (!nv) {
latch.countDown();
}
});
});
latch.await();
// do whatever needs to happen after the WebEngine finishes loading
return null; // using #submit(Callable) and Callable needs to return something
});
}
} finally {
executor.shutdown();
}
Some notes:
You may want to avoid creating the ExecutorService if the table has no items to process. That is, assuming you don't reuse the same ExecutorService every time.
If you reuse the ExecutorService, don't call shutdown().
This ExecutorService uses non-daemon threads. You can customize this by supplying a ThreadFactory that creates daemon threads.
I added a listener to the Worker#running property instead of the status property to make it easier to ensure countDown() is invoked no matter the terminal status of the load (i.e. whether it's SUCCEEDED, CANCELLED or FAILED).
You may want to remove the the listener added to the Worker's property when it's finished. You can do this by using an anonymous class (rather than the lambda expression I used) and calling obs.removeListener(this) inside the changed method, where obs is the ObservableValue argument.

Unit testing asynchronous computation that has to be interrupted manually

I have got a class that records eyetracking data asynchronously. There are methods to start and stop the recording process. The data is collected in a collection and the collection can only be accessed if the recording thread has finished its work. It basically encapsulates all the threading and synchronizing so the user of my library doesn't have to do it.
The heavily shortened code (generics and error handling omitted):
public class Recorder {
private Collection accumulatorCollection;
private Thread recordingThread;
private class RecordingRunnable implements Runnable {
...
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// fetch data and collect it in the accumulator
synchronized(acc) { acc.add(Eyetracker.getData()) }
}
}
}
public void start() {
accumulatorCollection = new Collection();
recordingThread = new Thread(new RecordingRunnable(accumulatorCollection));
recordingThread.start();
}
public void stop() {
recordingThread.interrupt();
}
public void getData() {
try {
recordingThread.join(2000);
if(recordingThread.isAlive()) { throw Exception(); }
}
catch(InterruptedException e) { ... }
synchronized(accumulatorCollection) { return accumulatorCollection; }
}
}
The usage is quite simple:
recorder.start();
...
recorder.stop();
Collection data = recorder.getData();
My problem with the whole thing is how to test it. Currently i am doing it like this:
recorder.start();
Thread.sleep(50);
recorder.stop();
Collection data = recorder.getData();
assert(stuff);
This works, but it is non-deterministic and slows down the test suite quite a bit (i marked these tests as integration tests, so they have to be run separately to circumvent this problem).
Is there a better way?

There is a better way using a CountDownLatch.
The non-deterministic part of the test stems from two variables in time you do not account for:
creating and starting a thread takes time and the thread may not have started executing the runnable when Thread.start() returns (the runnable will get executed, but it may be a bit later).
the stop/interrupt will break the while-loop in the Runnable but not immediately, it may be a bit later.
This is where a CountDownLatch comes in: it gives you precise information about where another thread is in execution. E.g. let the first thread wait on the latch, while the second "counts down" the latch as last statement within a runnable and now the first thread knows that the runnable finished. The CountDownLatch also acts as a synchronizer: whatever the second thread was writing to memory, can now be read by the first thread.
Instead of using an interrupt, you can also use a volatile boolean. Any thread reading the volatile variable is guaranteed to see the last value set by any other thread.
A CountDownLatch can also be given a timeout which is useful for tests that can hang: if you have to wait to long you can abort the whole test (e.g. shutdown executors, interrupt threads) and throw an AssertionError. In the code below I re-used the timeout to wait for a certain amount of data to collect instead of 'sleeping'.
As an optimization, use an Executor (ThreadPool) instead of creating and starting threads. The latter is relative expensive, using an Executor can really make a difference.
Below the updated code, I made it runnable as an application (main method). (edit 28/02/17: check maxCollect > 0 in while-loop)
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
public class Recorder {
private final ExecutorService executor;
private Thread recordingThread;
private volatile boolean stopRecording;
private CountDownLatch finishedRecording;
private Collection<Object> eyeData;
private int maxCollect;
private final AtomicBoolean started = new AtomicBoolean();
private final AtomicBoolean stopped = new AtomicBoolean();
public Recorder() {
this(null);
}
public Recorder(ExecutorService executor) {
this.executor = executor;
}
public Recorder maxCollect(int max) { maxCollect = max; return this; }
private class RecordingRunnable implements Runnable {
#Override public void run() {
try {
int collected = 0;
while (!stopRecording) {
eyeData.add(EyeTracker.getData());
if (maxCollect > 0 && ++collected >= maxCollect) {
stopRecording = true;
}
}
} finally {
finishedRecording.countDown();
}
}
}
public Recorder start() {
if (!started.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
throw new IllegalStateException("already started");
}
stopRecording = false;
finishedRecording = new CountDownLatch(1);
eyeData = new ArrayList<Object>();
// the RecordingRunnable created below will see the values assigned above ('happens before relationship')
if (executor == null) {
recordingThread = new Thread(new RecordingRunnable());
recordingThread.start();
} else {
executor.execute(new RecordingRunnable());
}
return this;
}
public Collection<Object> getData(long timeout, TimeUnit tunit) {
if (started.get() == false) {
throw new IllegalStateException("start first");
}
if (!stopped.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
throw new IllegalStateException("data already fetched");
}
if (maxCollect <= 0) {
stopRecording = true;
}
boolean recordingStopped = false;
try {
// this establishes a 'happens before relationship'
// all updates to eyeData are now visible in this thread.
recordingStopped = finishedRecording.await(timeout, tunit);
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("interrupted", e);
} finally {
stopRecording = true;
}
// if recording did not stop, do not return the eyeData (could stil be modified by recording-runnable).
if (!recordingStopped) {
throw new RuntimeException("recording");
}
// only when everything is OK this recorder instance can be re-used
started.set(false);
stopped.set(false);
return eyeData;
}
public static class EyeTracker {
public static Object getData() {
try { Thread.sleep(1); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
return new Object();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Starting.");
ExecutorService exe = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
try {
Recorder r = new Recorder(exe).maxCollect(50).start();
int dsize = r.getData(2000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS).size();
System.out.println("Collected " + dsize);
r.maxCollect(100).start();
dsize = r.getData(2000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS).size();
System.out.println("Collected " + dsize);
r.maxCollect(0).start();
Thread.sleep(100);
dsize = r.getData(2000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS).size();
System.out.println("Collected " + dsize);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
exe.shutdownNow();
System.out.println("Done.");
}
}
}
Happy coding :)

Access synchronized method from another thread using same instance

I've a core method in my project which I need it to be synchronized in order not to be accessed twice at the same time, and hence I have a thread which uses an instance from this class to access this method, but inside this thread I need to have a long life loop to be used to access the same method with a fixed value so I have to use another thread in order to allow the first thread to move on and complete it's duties, but for sure the method doesn't run from that second thread using the same instance used in the first thread, and somehow I can't instantiate another instance from the class as I have to use this instance exactly, so how to overcome this problem.
below is the problem translated to java:
public class ClassOne {
synchronized public void my_method(int number) {
// Do some Work
}
}
public class ClassTwo {
private void some_method() {
Thread one = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
ClassOne class_one = new ClassOne();
// DO Work
class_one.my_method(0);
run_loop(class_one);
// Complete Work
}
});
one.start();
}
boolean running = true;
private void run_loop(final ClassOne class_one) {
Thread two = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
class_one.my_method(1); // won't run
Thread.sleep(10000);
}
}
});
two.start();
}
}
Actual problem overview:
my_method --- > is to send UDP packets.
the method has to be synchronized otherwise I'll get the socket is already open exception when trying to use it more than once repeatedly.
at some point, I have to send a KeepAlive message repeatedly each 10 seconds, so, I have to launch a separate thread for that which is thread two in run_loop method.

Putting something that will compile and work. I don't see why you need this function to be synchronized. Check the output for this program...The second thread access this method only when the first thread is done accessing (unless you have missed adding some additional code).
class ClassOne {
int criticalData = 1;
synchronized public void my_method(int number) {
// Do some Work
criticalData *= 31;
System.out.println("Critical data:" + criticalData + "[" + Thread.currentThread().getName() + "]");
}
}
class ClassTwo {
boolean running = true;
public void some_method() {
Thread one = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
ClassOne class_one = new ClassOne();
// DO Work
class_one.my_method(0);
run_loop(class_one);
// Complete Work
}
});
one.start();
}
public void run_loop(final ClassOne class_one) {
Thread two = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (running) {
class_one.my_method(1); // won't run
try {
Thread.sleep(10000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
two.start();
}
}
public class StackExchangeProblem {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ClassTwo two = new ClassTwo();
two.some_method();
}
}

synchronizing a resource in executor framework

I am using executor framework for carrying out a large task. I need to keep a count of how many have been completed for process status purpose. So i have created a singleton class with a counter to keep the count.
public class ProgramInitializationTracker {
private static Map<String, Integer> programInitializedTracker = new HashMap<>();
private static ProgramInitializationTracker instance;
private ProgramInitializationTracker(){
}
public static ProgramInitializationTracker getInstance(){
if(instance == null){
synchronized (ProgramInitializationTracker.class) {
if(instance == null){
instance = new ProgramInitializationTracker();
}
}
}
return instance;
}
public Integer getProgramInitializedTracker(String key) {
return programInitializedTracker.get(key);
}
public void setProgramInitializedTracker(String key, int value) {
synchronized (ProgramInitializationTracker.class) {
ProgramInitializationTracker.programInitializedTracker.put(key, value);
}
}
}
But the problem is only by synchronizing set method will not really ensure that i have correct value of count. As far as i could get multithreading. Do making get function also synchronized will help me. If no then what should i have done to make it correct.

You should not attempt to implement your own thread-safe access to a collection when Java already provides this for you.
You should use a ConcurrentHashMap. Reads such as get do not block.
But rather than use an Integer type as the value stored in the map, you should use an AtomicInteger, which will ensure that multiple threads attempting to modify the value associated with the same key will be thread safe.

Under constraints you posted, simply sharing an instance of AtomicInteger between tasks you submit to an ExecutorService and a place you want to have a metric must do. variant1 is for having single counter covering all tasks and variant2 is for having counter per task type. This code is (should be) thread-safe.
#ThreadSafe
class Test {
private static class CountingRunnable implements Runnable {
#Nonnull
private final Runnable actualTask;
#Nonnull
private final AtomicInteger submitted;
public CountingRunnable(#Nonnull Runnable actualTask, #Nonnull AtomicInteger submitted) {
this.actualTask = actualTask;
this.submitted = submitted;
}
#Override
public void run() {
actualTask.run();
submitted.incrementAndGet();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
variant2();
}
private static void variant1() throws InterruptedException {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger();
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
service.submit(new CountingRunnable(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}, counter));
latch.await();
System.out.println(counter.get());
service.shutdown();
}
private enum TaskType {
TYPE_1,
TYPE_2
}
private static void variant2() throws InterruptedException {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(2);
final EnumMap<TaskType, AtomicInteger> metrics = new EnumMap<>(TaskType.class);
metrics.put(TaskType.TYPE_1, new AtomicInteger());
metrics.put(TaskType.TYPE_2, new AtomicInteger());
service.submit(new CountingRunnable(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}, metrics.get(TaskType.TYPE_1)));
service.submit(new CountingRunnable(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}, metrics.get(TaskType.TYPE_2)));
latch.await();
System.out.println("type 1: " + metrics.get(TaskType.TYPE_1));
System.out.println("type 2: " + metrics.get(TaskType.TYPE_2));
service.shutdown();
}
}