We Keep Coding

Updating JavaFX ProgressIndicator multiple times from a Thread

I am working on the design of a multi-threading app in Javafx and would like to have a TableView with columns for Name and Progress of each Thread. After doing much research I found a similar example of what I am trying to accomplish here:
JavaFX Update progressbar in tableview from Task
(Which points to this: 'https://community.oracle.com/message/10999916')
The problem I am running into, however, is illustrated well in this example; how can you call a 'Task' object multiple times to update a ProgressIndicator?
My understanding from Oracle's documentation is that a Task object "is a one-shot class and cannot be reused". It would seem then that one can only invoke the call() method of a Task object once. I need to update the Task multiple times as it progresses through a Thread class, not call it once and arbitrarily increment through a For loop.
I have read about binding to Listeners and creating Service classes, but I am unsure if those are actual resolutions to this problem. I would therefore like to ask if this is even possible in Javafx, or if perhaps I am overlooking something. In the event someone has accomplished this in the past, it would be tremendously helpful if you might be able to illustrate how through the example provided previously.
Any direction on this would be appreciated, thank you.
-Drew
EDIT 1: I edited my wording as it was inaccurate.
EDIT 2: Here is an example with some pseudo code. Say I had a class with the following code:
public static class TaskEx extends Task<Void>{
#Override
protected Void call(){
updateProgress(.5, 1);
return null
}
public static void callThread() {
TableView<TaskEx> table = new TableView<TaskEx>();
//Some code for data in table.
TableColumn progressColumn = new TableColumn ("Progress");
progressColumn.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactor("progress");
table.setItems(<data>);
table.getColumns();addAll(progressColumn);
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(<SomeNumber>);
for(TaskEx task : table.getItems(){
Threading.ThreadClass newThread = new Threading.ThreadClass(task);
executor.submit(newThread, <uniqueID>);
}
}
Then say I had a second class for Threading with this logic:
static class ThreadClass extends Thread{
Task progressTask;
public ThreadClass(Task task, Integer id){
progressTask = task;
}
public void run(){
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(<someNumber>);
//This invokes the Task call for the correct progressIndicator in the Tableview.
//It will correctly set the progressIndicator to 50% done.
executor.submit(progressTask);
/* Main logic of the Threading class that involves the 'id' passed in. */
//This will do nothing because you cannot invoke the Task call more than once.
executor.submit(progressTask);
}
}
That is the sort of workflow I need, but I'm unsure how to accomplish this.

It seems like you don't get what we were talking about. You are trying to do your logic in the Thread.run(), and then each thread is creating a Task just to do the update of progress.
What you need is really to shift your logic from Thread.run() to Task.call(). Your thread is really just a thread, and all it does is to run a Runnable object (which is the Task).
public class TaskEx extends Task<Void> {
#Override
protected Void call() {
// Do whatever you need this thread to do
updateProgress(0.5, 1);
// Do the rest
updateProgress(1, 1);
}
}
public static void callThread() {
TableView<TaskEx> table = new TableView<TaskEx>();
ObservableList<TaskEx> data = FXCollections.observableArrayList<>();
data.add(new TaskEx()); // Add the data you need
TableColumn progressColumn = new TableColumn("Progress");
progressColumn.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactory("progress"));
progressColumn.setCellFactory(column -> {
return new TableCell<TaskEx, Double> {
private final ProgressBar bp = new ProgressBar();
#Override
public void updateItem(Double item, boolean empty) {
super.updateItem(item, empty);
if (empty || item == null) {
setText(null);
setGraphic(null);
}
else {
bp.setProgress(item.doubleValue());
setGraphic(bp);
}
}
}
});
table.setItems(data);
table.getColumns().add(progressColumn);
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(data.size());
for (TaskEx task : table.getItems()) {
executor.submit(task);
}
}
This implement removes ThreadClass because there should not be any logic that must be done at a thread sub-class. If you really need to access the thread object as part of your logic, call Thread.getCurrentThread() from your TaskEx.call().
This implement also opens multiple threads doing exactly the same thing (which is quite meaningless). If you need to do a set of different logics, you can either make a set of different Task subclasses, or add a constructor taking in Runnable objects in TaskEx.
E.g.
public class TaskEx extends Task<Void> {
private final Runnable[] logics;
public TaskEx(Runnable[] logics) {
this.logics = logics;
}
#Override
protected Void call() {
for (int i = 0; i < logics.length; i++) {
logics[i].run();
updateProgress(i, logics.length);
}
}
}

Android Handler getting called repeatedly by Looper in Eclipse instead of Looper discarding message after use

I think I may have accidentally switched on some setting I didn't intent to in Eclipse or something. I'm working on an android game and from within the game logic, when certain events happen I send messages to the main activity to display certain things.
I have the following classes:
public class GameMessageHandler extends Handler {
public static final int DO_SOMETHING = 0;
private final WeakReference<MyActivity> myActivity;
public GameMessageHandler(MyActivity myActivity) {
this.myActivity = new WeakReference<MyActivity>(myActivity);
}
#Override
public void handleMessage(Message msg) {
if (myActivity != null) {
MyActivity activity = myActivity.get();
if (msg.what == DO_SOMETHING) {
//even if the caller only called this one time, this keeps executing forever
activity.doSomething();
}
}
}
}
public class GameEventListenerAndroid implements GameEventListener {
private Handler handler;
public GameEventListenerAndroid(GameMessageHandler gameMessageHandler){
this.handler = gameMessageHandler;
}
#Override
public void playerTookSomeAction() {
//this only gets called one time
handler.sendEmptyMessage(GameMessageHandler.DO_SOMETHING);
}
}
I KNOW this logic works because what I'm trying to run right now is from a backup I saved after I saw it work MULTIPLE times, but as I said what is happening right now is for some reason the Looper keeps calling the message handler with the same message a million times per second and never discards the message to move on to something else.
Any help is greatly appreciated!

Check points:
activity.doSomething() will not send message GameMessageHandler.DO_SOMETHING
playerTookSomeAction() is not called repeatedly
Just format it to be BETTER, incase someone feels so boring!

How to make this search in a new thread

I have search as you type functionality although it searches very fast and I can't notice it even with no multithreading I still want to know how would I use multithreading on this
search.textProperty().addListener(new ChangeListener<String>() {
#Override
public void changed(ObservableValue<? extends String> observableValue, String s, String s2) {
manager.searchString(s2);
listView.getItems().setAll(manager.getList());
}
});
So basically there is a TextField that when its text is changed I go and call a search method in object manager which puts its search result in an array when it finishes.
Then the ListView should update its data to this new array when it finishes.
How can I make the search on one thread and when it finishes it update the list data?!
I believe I can't just call the list function from other thread because GUI stuff should be called from only one thread.

To do this efficiently in a different thread is not as simple as it sounds.
You don't want to create and execute a new thread every time a key is pressed because:
There is system overhead for thread creation which would make that an extremely intensive process
There's no guarantee that the threads will execute and complete in the order they are created, so you may get an earlier thread finishing after a subsequent one and consequentially updating the list with invalid entries.
You could use a single-thread executor service (which keeps one thread alive and uses it to execute Runnables passed into it in order), which would be more efficient, but you'd need to remember to shut it down when your text field is destroyed (if you do ever destroy your text field). Something along these lines:
// first of all, at the class level (assuming listView and manager are both class-level variables, preferably final ones, too):
// An INNER class implementing Runnable which will carry out the searching
private class Searcher implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean cancelled = false;
private final String searchTerm;
Searcher(String searchTerm) {
this.searchTerm = searchTerm;
}
public void cancel() {
cancelled = true;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// remember that there's no guarantee that this will execute before the NEXT keypress, so we add a check to ensure that we still want to perform the search when it gets executed:
if (!cancelled) {
manager.searchString(searchTerm);
Platform.runLater(listViewUpdater); // listViewUpdater is defined below
}
}
}
// a Runnable to actually update the GUI after a seach has been performed
private Runnable listViewUpdater = new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
listView.getItems().setAll(manager.getList());
}
}
private ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
private Searcher lastSearcher = null;
// ... then, in the method which sets up the GUI
search.textProperty().addListener(new ChangeListener<String>() {
#Override
public void changed(ObservableValue<? extends String> observableValue, String s, String s2) {
if (lastSearcher != null) {
lastSearcher.cancel(); // prevents lastSearcher from running if it hasn't done so already
}
lastSearcher = new Searcher(s2);
executor.submit(lastSearcher);
}
});
The downside is you are creating a new object every time the value changes, but that isn't nearly as bad as creating a new Thread every time.

Queue with notifications on isEmpty() changes

I have an BlockingQueue<Runnable>(taken from ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor) in producer-consumer environment. There is one thread adding tasks to the queue, and a thread pool executing them.
I need notifications on two events:
First item added to empty queue
Last item removed from queue
Notification = writing a message to database.
Is there any sensible way to implement that?

A simple and naïve approach would be to decorate your BlockingQueue with an implementation that simply checks the underlying queue and then posts a task to do the notification.
NotifyingQueue<T> extends ForwardingBlockingQueue<T> implements BlockingQueue<T> {
private final Notifier notifier; // injected not null
…
#Override public void put(T element) {
if (getDelegate().isEmpty()) {
notifier.notEmptyAnymore();
}
super.put(element);
}
#Override public T poll() {
final T result = super.poll();
if ((result != null) && getDelegate().isEmpty())
notifier.nowEmpty();
}
… etc
}
This approach though has a couple of problems. While the empty -> notEmpty is pretty straightforward – particularly for a single producer case, it would be easy for two consumers to run concurrently and both see the queue go from non-empty -> empty.
If though, all you want is to be notified that the queue became empty at some time, then this will be enough as long as your notifier is your state machine, tracking emptiness and non-emptiness and notifying when it changes from one to the other:
AtomicStateNotifier implements Notifier {
private final AtomicBoolean empty = new AtomicBoolean(true); // assume it starts empty
private final Notifier delegate; // injected not null
public void notEmptyAnymore() {
if (empty.get() && empty.compareAndSet(true, false))
delegate.notEmptyAnymore();
}
public void nowEmpty() {
if (!empty.get() && empty.compareAndSet(false, true))
delegate.nowEmpty();
}
}
This is now a thread-safe guard around an actual Notifier implementation that perhaps posts tasks to an Executor to asynchronously write the events to the database.

The design is most likely flawed but you can do it relatively simple:
You have a single thread adding, so you can check before adding. i.e. pool.getQueue().isEmpty() - w/ one producer, this is safe.
Last item removed cannot be guaranteed but you can override beforeExecute and check the queue again. Possibly w/ a small timeout after isEmpty() returns true. Probably the code below will be better off executed in afterExecute instead.
protected void beforeExecute(Thread t, Runnable r) {
if (getQueue().isEmpty()){
try{
Runnable r = getQueue().poll(200, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
if (r!=null){
execute(r);
} else{
//last message - or on after execute by Setting a threadLocal and check it there
//alternatively you may need to do so ONLY in after execute, depending on your needs
}
}catch(InterruptedException _ie){
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
sometime like that
I can explain why doing notifications w/ the queue itself won't work well: imagine you add a task to be executed by the pool, the task is scheduled immediately, the queue is empty again and you will need notification.

Observer Design Pattern

In the Observer Design Pattern, the subject notifies all observers by calling the update() operation of each observer. One way of doing this is
void notify() {
for (observer: observers) {
observer.update(this);
}
}
But the problem here is each observer is updated in a sequence and update operation for an observer might not be called till all the observers before it is updated. If there is an observer that has an infinite loop for update then all the observer after it will never be notified.
Question:
Is there a way to get around this problem?
If so what would be a good example?

The problem is the infinite loop, not the one-after-the-other notifications.
If you wanted things to update concurrently, you'd need to fire things off on different threads - in which case, each listener would need to synchronize with the others in order to access the object that fired the event.
Complaining about one infinite loop stopping other updates from happening is like complaining that taking a lock and then going into an infinite loop stops others from accessing the locked object - the problem is the infinite loop, not the lock manager.

Classic design patterns do not involve parallelism and threading. You'd have to spawn N threads for the N observers. Be careful though since their interaction to this will have to be done in a thread safe manner.

You could make use of the java.utils.concurrent.Executors.newFixedThreadPool(int nThreads) method, then call the invokeAll method (could make use of the one with the timout too to avoid the infinite loop).
You would change your loop to add a class that is Callable that takes the "observer" and the "this" and then call the update method in the "call" method.
Take a look at this package for more info.
This is a quick and dirty implementation of what I was talking about:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.CopyOnWriteArrayList;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class Main
{
private Main()
{
}
public static void main(final String[] argv)
{
final Watched watched;
final List<Watcher> watchers;
watched = new Watched();
watchers = makeWatchers(watched, 10);
watched.notifyWatchers(9);
}
private static List<Watcher> makeWatchers(final Watched watched,
final int count)
{
final List<Watcher> watchers;
watchers = new ArrayList<Watcher>(count);
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
final Watcher watcher;
watcher = new Watcher(i + 1);
watched.addWatcher(watcher);
watchers.add(watcher);
}
return (watchers);
}
}
class Watched
{
private final List<Watcher> watchers;
{
watchers = new ArrayList<Watcher>();
}
public void addWatcher(final Watcher watcher)
{
watchers.add(watcher);
}
public void notifyWatchers(final int seconds)
{
final List<Watcher> currentWatchers;
final List<WatcherCallable> callables;
final ExecutorService service;
currentWatchers = new CopyOnWriteArrayList<Watcher>(watchers);
callables = new ArrayList<WatcherCallable>(currentWatchers.size());
for(final Watcher watcher : currentWatchers)
{
final WatcherCallable callable;
callable = new WatcherCallable(watcher);
callables.add(callable);
}
service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(callables.size());
try
{
final boolean value;
service.invokeAll(callables, seconds, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
value = service.awaitTermination(seconds, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println("done: " + value);
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
}
service.shutdown();
System.out.println("leaving");
}
private class WatcherCallable
implements Callable<Void>
{
private final Watcher watcher;
WatcherCallable(final Watcher w)
{
watcher = w;
}
public Void call()
{
watcher.update(Watched.this);
return (null);
}
}
}
class Watcher
{
private final int value;
Watcher(final int val)
{
value = val;
}
public void update(final Watched watched)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(value * 1000);
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
System.out.println(value + "interupted");
}
System.out.println(value + " done");
}
}

I'd be more concerned about the observer throwing an exception than about it looping indefinitely. Your current implementation would not notify the remaining observers in such an event.

1. Is there a way to get around this problem?
Yes, make sure the observer work fine and return in a timely fashion.
2. Can someone please explain it with an example.
Sure:
class ObserverImpl implements Observer {
public void update( Object state ) {
// remove the infinite loop.
//while( true ) {
// doSomething();
//}
// and use some kind of control:
int iterationControl = 100;
int currentIteration = 0;
while( curentIteration++ < iterationControl ) {
doSomething();
}
}
private void doSomething(){}
}
This one prevent from a given loop to go infinite ( if it makes sense, it should run at most 100 times )
Other mechanism is to start the new task in a second thread, but if it goes into an infinite loop it will eventually consume all the system memory:
class ObserverImpl implements Observer {
public void update( Object state ) {
new Thread( new Runnable(){
public void run() {
while( true ) {
doSomething();
}
}
}).start();
}
private void doSomething(){}
}
That will make the that observer instance to return immediately, but it will be only an illusion, what you have to actually do is to avoid the infinite loop.
Finally, if your observers work fine but you just want to notify them all sooner, you can take a look at this related question: Invoke a code after all mouse event listeners are executed..

All observers get notified, that's all the guarantee you get.
If you want to implement some fancy ordering, you can do that:
Connect just a single Observer;
have this primary Observer notify his friends in an order you define in code or by some other means.
That takes you away from the classic Observer pattern in that your listeners are hardwired, but if it's what you need... do it!

If you have an observer with an "infinite loop", it's no longer really the observer pattern.
You could fire a different thread to each observer, but the observers MUST be prohibited from changing the state on the observed object.
The simplest (and stupidest) method would simply be to take your example and make it threaded.
void notify() {
for (observer: observers) {
new Thread(){
public static void run() {
observer.update(this);
}
}.start();
}
}
(this was coded by hand, is untested and probably has a bug or five--and it's a bad idea anyway)
The problem with this is that it will make your machine chunky since it has to allocate a bunch of new threads at once.
So to fix the problem with all the treads starting at once, use a ThreadPoolExecutor because it will A) recycle threads, and B) can limit the max number of threads running.
This is not deterministic in your case of "Loop forever" since each forever loop will permanently eat one of the threads from your pool.
Your best bet is to not allow them to loop forever, or if they must, have them create their own thread.
If you have to support classes that can't change, but you can identify which will run quickly and which will run "Forever" (in computer terms I think that equates to more than a second or two) then you COULD use a loop like this:
void notify() {
for (observer: observers) {
if(willUpdateQuickly(observer))
observer.update(this);
else
new Thread(){
public static void run() {
observer.update(this);
}
}.start();
}
}
Hey, if it actually "Loops forever", will it consume a thread for every notification? It really sounds like you may have to spend some more time on your design.