We Keep Coding

Java multi threading - run threads run method only once in sequence

In my applications there are an n number of actions that must happen, one after the other in sequence, for the whole life of the program. Instead of creating methods which implement those actions and calling them in order in a while(true) loop, I decided to create one thread for each action, and make them execute their run method once, then wait until all the other threads have done the same, wait for its turn, and re-execute again, and so on...
To implement this mechanism I created a class called StatusHolder, which has a single field called threadTurn (which signifies which thread should execute), a method to read this value, and one for updating it. (Note, this class uses the Singleton design pattern)
package Test;
public class StatusHolder
{
private static volatile StatusHolder statusHolderInstance = null;
public static volatile int threadTurn = 0;
public synchronized static int getTurn()
{
return threadTurn;
}
public synchronized static void nextTurn()
{
System.out.print("Thread turn: " + threadTurn + " --> ");
if (threadTurn == 1)
{
threadTurn = 0;
}
else
{
threadTurn++;
}
System.out.println(threadTurn);
//Wake up all Threads waiting on this obj for the right turn to come
synchronized (getStatusHolder())
{
getStatusHolder().notifyAll();
}
}
public static synchronized StatusHolder getStatusHolder()
{//Returns reference to this object
if (statusHolderInstance == null)
{
statusHolderInstance = new StatusHolder();
}
return statusHolderInstance;
}
}
Then I have, let's say, two threads which must be execute in the way explained above, t1 and t2.
T1 class looks like this:
package Test;
public class ThreadOne implements Runnable
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
ThreadUtils.waitForTurn(0);
//Execute job, code's not here for simplicity
System.out.println("T1 executed");
StatusHolder.nextTurn();
}
}
}
And T2 its the same, just change 0 to 1 in waitForTurn(0) and T1 to T2 in the print statement.
And my main is the following:
package Test;
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(new ThreadOne());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new ThreadTwo());
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
So the run method goes like this:
At the start of the loop the thread looks if it can act by checking the turn value with the waitForTurn() call:
package Test;
public class ThreadUtils
{
public static void waitForTurn(int codeNumber)
{ //Wait until turn value is equal to the given number
synchronized (StatusHolder.getStatusHolder())
{
while (StatusHolder.getTurn() != codeNumber)
{
try
{
StatusHolder.getStatusHolder().wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
If the two values are equal, the thread executes, otherwise it waits on the StatusHolder object to be awaken from the nextTurn() call, because when the turn value changes all the threads are awaken so that they can check if the new turn value is the one they are waiting for so they can run.
Note thatnextTurn() cycles between 0 and 1: that is because in this scenario I just have two threads, the first executes when the turn flag is 0, and the second when its 1, and then 0 again and so on. I can easily change the number of turns by changing this value.
The problem: If I run it, all goes well and seems to work, but suddenly the output console stops flowing, even if the program doesn't crash at all. I tried to put a t1.join() and then a print in the main but that print never executes, this means that the threads never stop/dies, but instead they remain locked sometimes.
This looks to be even more evident if I put three threads: it stops even sooner than with two threads.
I'm relatively new to threads, so I might be missing something really stupid here...
EDIT: I'd prefer not to delete a thread and create a new one every time: creating and deleting thousands of objs every second seems a big work load for the garbage collector.
The reason why I'm using threads and not functions is because in my real application (this code is just simplified) at a certain turn there actually are multiple threads that must run (in parallel), for example: turn 1 one thread, turn 2 one thread, turn 3 30 threads, repeat. So I thought why not creating threads also for the single functions and make the whole think sequential.

This is a bad approach. Multiple threads allow you to execute tasks concurrently. Executing actions "one after the other in sequence" is a job for a single thread.
Just do something like this:
List<Runnable> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
tasks.add(new ThreadOne()); /* Pick better names for tasks */
tasks.add(new ThreadTwo());
...
ExecutorService worker = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
worker.submit(() -> {
while (!Thread.interrupted())
tasks.forEach(Runnable::run);
});
worker.shutdown();
Call worker.shutdownNow() when your application is cleanly exiting to stop these tasks at the end of their cycle.

you can use Semaphore class it's more simple
class t1 :
public class t1 implements Runnable{
private Semaphore s2;
private Semaphore s1;
public t1(Semaphore s1,Semaphore s2){
this.s1=s1;
this.s2=s2;
}
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try {
s1.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(t1.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
//Execute job, code's not here for simplicity
System.out.println("T1 executed");
s2.release();
}
}
}
class t2:
public class t2 implements Runnable{
private Semaphore s2;
private Semaphore s1;
public t2(Semaphore s1,Semaphore s2){
this.s1=s1;
this.s2=s2;
}
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try {
s2.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(t2.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
//Execute job, code's not here for simplicity
System.out.println("T2 executed");
s1.release();
}
}
}
class main:
public class Testing {
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
Semaphore s2=new Semaphore(0);
Semaphore s1=new Semaphore(1);
Thread th1 = new Thread(new t1(s1,s2));
Thread th2 = new Thread(new t2(s1,s2));
th1.start();
th2.start();
}}

"notifyAll()" in java threads: unexpected waiting time

I am reading some code in OCA/OCP Java SE 7 Programmer I & II Study Guide, and I got stuck on an example:
package threads;
class Totalizer implements Runnable
{
int total = 0;
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++){
total += i;
}
notifyAll();
}
}
}
class Tester extends Thread
{
Totalizer t;
public Tester(Totalizer tot){t = tot;}
public void run(){
synchronized(t){
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for calculation...");
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println(t.total);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args){
Totalizer t = new Totalizer();
new Tester(t).start();
new Tester(t).start();
new Tester(t).start();
}
}
//
When I run main(), it prints:
waiting for calculation...
waiting for calculation...
waiting for calculation...
and nothing happens, no calculation, nothing. I can't figure out what is wrong with this code.

Two points.
The most obvious one is that you never start the Totalizer runnable, so the notifyAll call is never issued. You need to have a line
new Thread(t).start();
somewhere in your main method. But even if you do that, it won't work reliably, as the wait call may be invoked after the notifyAll call. It may also print the output too early, as the wait call can wake up without a notifyAll as well.
The Javadoc for Object.wait() describes what you need to do:
synchronized (obj) {
while (<condition does not hold>)
obj.wait();
... // Perform action appropriate to condition
}
So, you can't just call Object.wait just like that, if you want to use it correctly. This is because:
You don't know if the condition was already satisfied earlier, before you started waiting
The wait call may also wake up without a notify call
In your case, you need a condition variable that you can check. For example, you can change your code like this:
class Totalizer implements Runnable
{
int total = 0;
boolean calculationComplete; // Condition to check in wait()
public void run() {
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
total += i;
}
synchronized (this) {
// Indicate condition for wait() is now true
calculationComplete = true;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
class Tester extends Thread
{
Totalizer t;
public Tester(Totalizer tot){t = tot;}
public void run(){
synchronized(t) {
System.out.println("Waiting for calculation...");
// Loop, terminate when condition is true
while (!t.calculationComplete) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
System.out.println(t.total);
}
}

Last thread is not executing

I am very new to multithreading, was trying a scenario in which a home has a mother(as producer),son,daughter and husband[As consumer] thread.I am trying to understand how wait and notify method can help here.
My classes are as below.
MotherAsProducer
package com.test.All.Threads;
public enum MotherAsProducer {
INSTANCE;
/*
*
*
* son Give request to prepare chapati to mother
* mother accepts it and start preparing , son/husband/daughter should wait by that time.
* mother notifies son/daughtor/husband that chapati is ready start consuming
* */
public synchronized void takeOrderAndMakeChapati(){
try {
System.out.println("Request got from "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
getStatusOfChapati();
wait();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" ate chapati");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
//lock re-entrance
public synchronized void getStatusOfChapati(){
try {
Thread.sleep(1200);
System.out.println("Chapati is prepared for "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
notifyAll();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static MotherAsProducer getMotherInstance(){
return MotherAsProducer.INSTANCE;
}
}
SonAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class SonAsConsumer implements Runnable{
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
DaughterAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class DaughterAsConsumer implements Runnable {
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
HusbandAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class HusbandAsConsumer implements Runnable {
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
Home class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class Home {
public static void main(String args[]){
SonAsConsumer sac = new SonAsConsumer();
DaughterAsConsumer dac = new DaughterAsConsumer();
HusbandAsConsumer hac = new HusbandAsConsumer();
Thread tsac = new Thread(sac);
tsac.setName("Son");
Thread tdac = new Thread(dac);
tdac.setName("Daughter");
Thread thac = new Thread(hac);
thac.setName("Husband");
tsac.start();
tdac.start();
thac.start();
}
}
My output is different, every time as expected by nature of thread but one of the individual either husband, daughtor or son is not getting complete.
one instance of my output is as below.
Order she got from Daughter
Chapati is prepared for Daughter
Order she got from Son
Chapati is prepared for Son
Order she got from Husband
Chapati is prepared for Husband
Son ate chapati
Daughter ate chapati
My understanding here is when son,daughter and husband will start executing one of them will hit the synchronized method and execute wait() and will hold the lock , from that synchronized method again another synchronized method is called which will contain notify and the lock will be released and another thread will try to get the lock from the blocked pool and will execute in the same manner . here two threads are behaving as expected but the last one is not.
Kindly help here.

Briefly looking, it looks like the last thread to get to the wait will never get notified. Sequencing your calls you have each thread getting a lock, notifying all waiting threads, and then waiting. So, the last thread that hits the wait will never have anyone to notify them that they need to exit.
That is, if Thread A gets the lock initially, then it will do a println and a sleep then a println, then notify all waiting threads (there are none), and then become a waiting thread.
Then, lets say Thread B gets the lock. It will do a println and a sleep, then it will notify all (which will "notify" Thread A), then it will wait.
Now, either Thread C or Thread A will get the lock. If Thread A gets it, it will simply fall through and complete with the "ate" message. Then, Thread C can get the lock and it will eventually notify, waking B which can eat once C "waits". Now, there is no thread left to notify so that C will complete.
This make sense? Did I misread anything?
To verify what I'm suggesting is wrong, simply add in more threads. You should always have the last one that prints "Chapati is prepared for ..." will never eat it.
Fundamentally, I think the confusion is that "Mother" is not actually doing any work. What you probably wanted is to have "Mother" be a thread that has its own work log. So, when one of the other threads gives her work, you set a variable then notify mother and wait as the sibling. The mother will then wake up and do the work and notify the current thread waiting.
See what I mean? Metaphorically, you have 4 people in this program. But, you only have 3 threads.

Change the method in the enum class MotherAsProducer as follows: The unnecessary wait() method caused the issue. Since the method is synchronized, all other threads will be blocked before entering into the method until getting a notification from lock holding thread.
public synchronized void takeOrderAndMakeChapati() {
System.out.println("Request got from " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
getStatusOfChapati();
// wait(); - THIS WAIT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " ate chapati");
}

Remove wait and notifyAll calls from both takeOrderAndMakeChapati and getStatusOfChapati. You will get the expected result.
As precisely mentioned by Josh, one of the threads (last one) is still waiting for some external notification, and there is nobody to notify. You code is still running in the background. Just call wait(5000) and you can see it happening.
Both methods takeOrderAndMakeChapati and getStatusOfChapati are synchronized, therefore synchronization is not the issue.
Generally threads wait for some external dependency or condition, where some other thread(s) notifies the waiting one, when that condition is fulfilled.

I also tried to understand wait and notify when I started with multithreading. But as soon as I learned to use a Semaphore, I never looked back. Hopefully, the example below will give you some insight into the benefits of using a Semaphore. There is also a lot more useful stuff in the java.util.concurrent package that can be of great help.
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class EatChapati {
static int CHAPATI_PREPARE_TIME_MS = 100;
static long RUN_TIME_MS = 2000;
static long SHUTDOWN_TIME_MS = 500;
static int CHAPATI_CONSUMERS = 5;
static volatile boolean stop;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < CHAPATI_CONSUMERS; i++) {
executor.execute(new ChapatiConsumer(i + 1));
}
try { Thread.sleep(RUN_TIME_MS); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
stop = true;
executor.shutdownNow();
try { executor.awaitTermination(SHUTDOWN_TIME_MS, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
}
// 1 producer making chapati's
// 'true' for a fair semaphore: longest waiting consumer gets served
static Semaphore chapatiTurn = new Semaphore(1, true);
static AtomicInteger chapatiCount = new AtomicInteger();
static int getChapati(int consumerNumber) {
int chapatiNumber = 0;
boolean haveTurn = false;
try {
chapatiTurn.acquire();
// start of 'synchronized' block
haveTurn = true;
Thread.sleep(CHAPATI_PREPARE_TIME_MS);
chapatiNumber = chapatiCount.incrementAndGet();
System.out.println("Chapati " + chapatiNumber + " prepared for consumer " + consumerNumber);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Triggered by executor.shutdownNow
stop = true;
} finally {
if (haveTurn) {
chapatiTurn.release();
// end of 'synchronized' block
}
}
return chapatiNumber;
}
static class ChapatiConsumer implements Runnable {
int number;
ChapatiConsumer(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
public void run() {
int chapatisConsumed = 0;
while (!stop) {
if (getChapati(number) > 0) {
chapatisConsumed++;
}
}
System.out.println("Consumer " + number + " stopped after consuming " + chapatisConsumed + " chapatis.");
}
}
}

why without calling the notify wait is releasing the lock

Please see the below code, where the notifyAll is commented. Still the main thread is printing the total? How is it possible?
public class ThreadA {
public static void main(String[] args){
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b){
try{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}}
class ThreadB extends Thread{
int total;
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++){
total += i;
}
// notify();
}
}
}

What you see is the result of something documented in the javadoc of Thread.join():
As a thread terminates the this.notifyAll method is invoked.
Note that it goes on with
It is recommended that applications not use wait, notify, or notifyAll on Thread instances
Also note that a thread blocked on wait() can go out of its waiting state without any notification, due to spurious wakeups. And the javadoc of wait() clearly explains that wait() should always be called inside a loop.

Also note: The Java API doc for Object.wait() says, "...interrupts and spurious wakeups are possible, and this method should always be used in a loop."
That is generally true in other APIs and other languages as well. A method/function should never assume that the condition it was waiting for is true just because a wait() operation on a condition variable returned. There should always be a loop. In pseudo-code:
lock mutex
while (! ok_to_do_whatever()) {
wait on condition_variable
}
do_whatever()
unlock mutex

Try this and the waiting thread will wait forever...
public class ThreadA {
public static Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args){
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(lock){
try{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
lock.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread
{
int total;
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(ThreadA.lock){
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++){
total += i;
}
// notify();
}
}
}

Java: Threads, how to make them all do something

I am trying to implement nodes talking to each other in Java. I am doing this by creating a new thread for every node that wants to talk to the server.
When the given number of nodes, i.e. that many threads have been created, have connected to the server I want each thread to execute their next bit of code after adding to the "sharedCounter".
I think I need to use 'locks' on the shared variable, and something like signalAll() or notifyAll() to get all the threads going, but I can't seem to make clear sense of exactly how this works or to implement it.
Any help explaining these Java concepts would be greatly appreciated :D
Below is roughly the structure of my code:
import java.net.*;
import java.io.*;
public class Node {
public static void main(String[] args) {
...
// Chooses server or client launchers depend on parameters.
...
}
}
class sharedResource {
private int sharedCounter;
public sharedResource(int i) {
sharedCounter = i;
}
public synchronized void incSharedCounter() {
sharedCounter--;
if (sharedCounter == 0)
// Get all threads to do something
}
}
class Server {
...
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++) {
new serverThread(serverSocket.accept()).start();
}
...
sharedResource threadCount = new sharedResource(numberOfThreads);
...
}
class serverThread extends Thread {
...
//some code
Server.threadCount.incSharedCounter();
// Some more code to run when sharedCounte == 0
...
}
class Client {
...
}

　　　　　// Get all threads to do something
Threads (or rather Runnables, which you should implement rather than extending Thread) have a run method that contains the code they are expected to execute.
Once you call Thread#start (which in turn calls Runnable#run), the thread will start doing exactly that.
Since you seem to be new to multi-threading in Java, I recommend that you read an introduction to the Concurrency Utility package, that has been introduced in Java5 to make it easier to implement concurrent operations.
Specifically what you seem to be looking for is a way to "pause" the operation until a condition is met (in your case a counter having reached zero). For this, you should look at a CountDownLatch.

Indeed, the subject is broad, but I'll try to explain the basics. More details can be read from various blogs and articles. One of which is the Java trail.
It is best to see each thread as being runners (physical persons) that run alongside each other in a race. Each runner may perform any task while running. For example, take a cup of water from a table at a given moment in the race. Physically, they cannot both drink from the same cup at once, but in the virtual world, it is possible (this is where the line is drawn).
For example, take again two runners; each of them has to run back and forth a track, and push a button (shared by the runners) at each end for 1'000'000 times, the button is simply incrementing a counter by one each time. When they completed their run, what would be the value of the counter? In the physical world, it would be 2'000'000 because the runners cannot push the button at the same time, they would wait for the first one to leave first... that is unless they fight over it... Well, this is exactly what two threads would do. Consider this code :
public class ThreadTest extends Thread {
static public final int TOTAL_INC = 1000000;
static public int counter = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
counter++;
}
System.out.println("Thread stopped incrementing counter " + TOTAL_INC + " times");
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new ThreadTest();
Thread t2 = new ThreadTest();
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join(); // wait for each thread to stop on their own...
t2.join(); //
System.out.println("Final counter is : " + counter + " which should be equal to " + TOTAL_INC * 2);
}
}
An output could be something like
Thread stopped incrementing counter 1000000 times
Thread stopped incrementing counter 1000000 times
Final counter is : 1143470 which should be equal to 2000000
Once in a while, the two thread would just increment the same value twice; this is called a race condition.
Synchronizing the run method will not work, and you'd have to use some locking mechanism to prevent this from happening. Consider the following changes in the run method :
static private Object lock = new Object();
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
synchronized(lock) {
counter++;
}
}
System.out.println("Thread stopped incrementing counter " + TOTAL_INC + " times");
}
Now the expected output is
...
Final counter is : 2000000 which should be equal to 2000000
We have synchronized our counter with a shared object. This is like putting a queue line before only one runner can access the button at once.
NOTE : this locking mechanism is called a mutex. If a resource can be accessed by n threads at once, you might consider using a semaphore.
Multithreading is also associated with deadlocking. A deadlock is when two threads mutually waits for the other to free some synchronized resource to continue. For example :
Thread 1 starts
Thread 2 starts
Thread 1 acquire synchronized object1
Thread 2 acquire synchronized object2
Thread 2 needs to acquire object2 for continuing (locked by Thread 1)
Thread 1 needs to acquire object1 for continuing (locked by Thread 2)
Program hangs in deadlock
While there are many ways to prevent this from happening (it depends on what your threads are doing, and how they are implemented...) You should read about that particularly.
NOTE : the methods wait, notify and notifyAll can only be called when an object is synchronized. For example :
static public final int TOTAL_INC = 10;
static private int counter = 0;
static private Object lock = new Object();
static class Thread1 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
try {
lock.wait();
counter++;
lock.notify();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
static class Thread2 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
try {
lock.notify();
counter--;
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
/* ignored */
}
}
}
}
}
Notice that both threads are running their for...loop blocks within the synchronized block. (The result of counter == 0 when both threads end.) This can be achieved because they "let each other" access the synchronized resource via the resource's wait and notify methods. Without using those two methods, both threads would simply run sequentially and not concurrently (or more precisely, alternately).
I hope this shed some light about threads (in Java).
** UPDATE **
Here is a little proof of concept of everything discussed above, using the CountDownLatch class suggested by Thilo earlier :
static class Server {
static public final int NODE_COUNT = 5;
private List<RunnableNode> nodes;
private CountDownLatch startSignal;
private Object lock = new Object();
public Server() {
nodes = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<RunnableNode>());
startSignal = new CountDownLatch(Server.NODE_COUNT);
}
public Object getLock() {
return lock;
}
public synchronized void connect(RunnableNode node) {
if (startSignal.getCount() > 0) {
startSignal.countDown();
nodes.add(node);
System.out.println("Received connection from node " + node.getId() + " (" + startSignal.getCount() + " remaining...)");
} else {
System.out.println("Client overflow! Refusing connection from node " + node.getId());
throw new IllegalStateException("Too many nodes connected");
}
}
public void shutdown() {
for (RunnableNode node : nodes) {
node.shutdown();
}
}
public void awaitAllConnections() {
try {
startSignal.await();
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notifyAll(); // awake all nodes
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
/* ignore */
shutdown(); // properly close any connected node now
}
}
}
static class RunnableNode implements Runnable {
private Server server;
private int id;
private boolean working;
public RunnableNode(int id, Server server) {
this.id = id;
this.server = server;
this.working = true;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep((long) (Math.random() * 5) * 1000); // just wait randomly from 0 to 5 seconds....
synchronized (server.getLock()) {
server.connect(this);
server.getLock().wait();
}
if (!Thread.currentThread().isAlive()) {
throw new InterruptedException();
} else {
System.out.println("Node " + id + " started successfully!");
while (working) {
Thread.yield();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
System.out.print("Ooop! ...");
} catch (IllegalStateException e2) {
System.out.print("Awwww! Too late! ...");
}
System.out.println("Node " + id + " is shutting down");
}
public void shutdown() {
working = false; // shutdown node here...
}
}
static public void main(String...args) throws InterruptedException {
Server server = new Server();
for (int i=0; i<Server.NODE_COUNT + 4; i++) { // create 4 more nodes than needed...
new Thread(new RunnableNode(i, server)).start();
}
server.awaitAllConnections();
System.out.println("All connection received! Server started!");
Thread.sleep(6000);
server.shutdown();
}

This is a broad topic. You might try reading through the official guides for concurrency (i.e. threading, more or less) in Java. This isn't something with cut-and-dried solutions; you have to design something.