I must design a simple server which receives messages from multiple nodes and stores them in a message repository.
The code for the server is :
public class CommunicationServer implements Runnable {
private List<String> messages;
private MessageRepository messageRepository;
private boolean serverBusy;
public CommunicationServer() {
messages = new ArrayList<String>();
messageRepository = new MessageRepository();
serverBusy = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
synchronized (this) {
if (messages.size() > 10) {
serverBusy = true;
addMessageToRepository();
notifyAll();
}
else {
serverBusy = false;
wait();
}
}
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
}
}
public synchronized void receiveMessage(String message) {
if (messages.size() < 10) {
messages.add(message);
}
}
private void addMessageToRepository() {
if (messages.size() != 0) {
messageRepository.addMessage(messages.remove(0));
}
}
public void showMessageRepository() {
messageRepository.showStoredMessages();
}
public synchronized boolean isServerBusy() {
return serverBusy;
}
}
The code for the node is:
public class Node implements Runnable {
private static final String CHARACTERS = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZ0123456789";
private static final int MESSAGE_LENGHT = 5;
private Random random = new Random();
private CommunicationServer communicationServer;
public Node(CommunicationServer communicationServer) {
this.communicationServer = communicationServer;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
while (communicationServer.isServerBusy()) {
wait();
}
communicationServer.receiveMessage(generateRandomString());
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
}
}
private String generateRandomString() {
StringBuffer randomMessage = new StringBuffer();
for (int i = 0; i < MESSAGE_LENGHT; i++) {
randomMessage.append(CHARACTERS.charAt(random.nextInt(51)));
}
return randomMessage.toString();
}
}
In main I just create a thread for the server and 5 threads for the nodes and let them run for some time. The server sleeps until it receives 10 messages, after that it must wake up to process the messages. The problem is I can't figure it out where to call notifyAll() in order to wake the thread responsible for the server.
Making CommunicationServer implements Runnable doesn't really make sense and exposes your basic misunderstanding: you identify the actors in your process (server, client) with threads. A thread is not the actor; a thread is where actor's code gets executed.
So, when in your CommunicationServer you say wait(), you don't make the server wait for messages; you make that particular thread wait on the server object as its monitor. Likewise, then you say notifyAll(), you are not "notifying all servers"; you are notifying all threads waiting on that particular monitor. It should be some code in the client which notifies the threads that are currently waiting on the server's monitor, and some code in the server which notifies those waiting on the client monitor.
As a general rule of thumb, when you find yourself using both wait() and notify() within the same synchronized block, you can be pretty sure there's something wrong with your logic.
Related
I have to make three producers and one consumer thread. Producers threads is reading chars from file and using buffer of one char. I made Store like above, now i have to synchronize threads to consumer write whole word and give back control to other producer - patern like this
Producer1->Word1
Producer2->word1
Producer3->word1
Producer1->Word2
Producer2->word2
Producer3->word2
Producer1->Word3
Producer2->word3
Producer3->word3
Store (edited):
public class Store {
public static final char CONSUMER_FREE = '\0';
private volatile char consumer = CONSUMER_FREE;
private final ThreadPoolExecutor executor;
public Store(ThreadPoolExecutor executor) {
this.executor = executor;
}
public synchronized void produce(char c) {
while (isConsumerBussy()) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
consumer = c;
notify(); // single Consumer
}
public synchronized char consume() throws StoreProducersRip {
while (isConsumerFree()) {
try {
wait(250);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
try {
return consumer;
} finally {
freeConsumer();
notifyAll();
}
}
private void freeConsumer() {
consumer = CONSUMER_FREE;
}
private boolean isConsumerBussy() {
return consumer != CONSUMER_FREE;
}
private boolean isConsumerFree() throws StoreProducersRip {
if (executor.getActiveCount() == 0) throw new StoreProducersRip();
return consumer == CONSUMER_FREE;
}
}
You can use locks for this purpose. Below code demonstrates 3 producer synchronous and 1 consumer async to producers but it'd also be sync to multiple consumers here. Also you should add some logic to consume same amount that produced. If you want to get benefits of multithreading, you should buffer your producer input and create some pipeline before consuming.
public class Executor {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadPoolExecutor executor = (ThreadPoolExecutor) Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Store store = new Store(executor);
Runnable word1 = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
store.producerLock.lock();
store.produce('1');
store.produce('2');
store.produce('3');
store.producerLock.unlock();
}
};
Runnable consume = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
store.consumerLock.lock();
System.out.print(store.consume());
System.out.print(store.consume());
System.out.print(store.consume());
System.out.println();
store.consumerLock.unlock();
}
};
Future p1 = executor.submit(word1);
Future p2 = executor.submit(word1);
Future p3 = executor.submit(word1);
executor.submit(consume);
executor.submit(consume);
executor.submit(consume);
executor.shutdown();
}
}
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 :)
I have been working on some code, but I need help.
I have created one producer and one consumer, however I need to create multiple consumers who will consume the specific String from the producer e.g. I need a consumer that will consume specifically 'Move Left Hand'.
Contained in the code is the buffer, producer, consumer and the main. I am not sure how to notify the correct consumer and compare the string that needs to be consumed. As it stands I only have one consumer.
public class iRobotBuffer {
private boolean empty = true;
public synchronized String take() {
// Wait until message is
// available.
while (empty) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
// Toggle status.
empty = true;
// Notify producer that
// status has changed.
notifyAll();
return message;
}
public synchronized void put(String message) {
// Wait until message has
// been retrieved.
while (!empty) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
// Toggle status.
empty = false;
// Store message.
this.message = message;
// Notify consumer that status
// has changed.
notifyAll();
}
}
public class iRobotConsumer implements Runnable {
private iRobotBuffer robotBuffer;
public iRobotConsumer(iRobotBuffer robotBuffer){
this.robotBuffer = robotBuffer;
}
public void run() {
Random random = new Random();
for (String message = robotBuffer.take();
! message.equals("DONE");
message = robotBuffer.take()) {
System.out.format("MESSAGE RECEIVED: %s%n", message);
try {
Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(5000));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
}
public class iRobotProducer implements Runnable {
private iRobotBuffer robotBuffer;
private int number;
public iRobotProducer(iRobotBuffer robotBuffer)
{
this.robotBuffer = robotBuffer;
//this.number = number;
}
public void run() {
String commandInstructions[] = {
"Move Left Hand",
"Move Right Hand",
"Move Both Hands",
};
int no = commandInstructions.length;
int randomNo;
Random random = new Random();
for (int i = 0;
i < commandInstructions.length;
i++) {
randomNo =(int)(Math.random()*no);
System.out.println(commandInstructions[randomNo]);
robotBuffer.put(commandInstructions[i]);
try {
Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(5000));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
robotBuffer.put("DONE");
}
}
public class iRobot
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
iRobotBuffer robotBuffer = new iRobotBuffer();
(new Thread(new iRobotProducer(robotBuffer))).start();
(new Thread(new iRobotConsumer(robotBuffer))).start();
}//main
}//class
The problem is your iRobotBuffer class. It needs to be a queue to support multiple producer / consumers. I've provided the code for such a queue, but java already has an implementation (BlockingDeque<E>).
public class BlockingQueue<T> {
private final LinkedList<T> innerList = new LinkedList<>();
private boolean isEmpty = true;
public synchronized T take() throws InterruptedException {
while (isEmpty) {
wait();
}
T element = innerList.removeFirst();
isEmpty = innerList.size() == 0;
return element;
}
public synchronized void put(T element) {
isEmpty = false;
innerList.addLast(element);
notify();
}
}
As I understand, you would like 3 consumers, one for each move instruction.
You can use an ArrayBlockingQueue from the java.util.concurrent package, in place of the iRobotBuffer class. By the way, you can have a look at the other concurrent collections provided - one may sweet you better.
Then for the consumer, you can peek() at what is in the queue and test if it matches the requirements and then poll().
Essentially, what I want to do is start all my threads, pause them all, then resume them all, using the multithreading approach. I am just looking for a simple solution to this. I'm not sure if I have to use a timer or what. Right now when I run it, the threads are like being executed in random order (I guess the PC is just randomly picking which ones it wants to run at a certain time).
class ChoppingThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int j=40;j!=0;j-=10)
System.out.println("Chopping vegetables...("+j+" seconds left)");
}
}
class MixingThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int k=60;k!=0;k-=10)
System.out.println("Mixing sauces...("+k+" seconds left)");
}
}
class TenderizingThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int j=50;j!=0;j-=10)
System.out.println("Tenderizing meat...("+j+" seconds left)");
}
}
class MultiThreadTasking
{
public static void main (String [] args)
{
ChoppingThread ct = new ChoppingThread();
MixingThread mt = new MixingThread();
TenderizingThread tt = new TenderizingThread();
System.out.println("\nWelcome to the busy kitchen.");
//putting threads into ready state
ct.start();
mt.start();
tt.start();
}
}
There are probably other ways to achieve the same result, but this is the simplest I can come up with off the top of my head (I know, sad isn't it)...
Basically, this is a special Runnable with some additional management functionality.
This basically contains a state flag that indicates the state of the task and a monitor lock
public class ThreadFun {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyTask task = new MyTask();
Thread thread = new Thread(task);
thread.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
task.pauseTask();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
task.resumeTask();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
task.stopTask();
}
public enum TaskState {
Running,
Stopped,
Paused
}
public static class MyTask implements Runnable {
private static final Object PAUSED_LOCK = new Object();
private volatile TaskState state = TaskState.Running;
public void pauseTask() {
if (state == TaskState.Running) {
System.out.println("Paused...");
state = TaskState.Paused;
}
}
public void resumeTask() {
if (state == TaskState.Paused) {
state = TaskState.Running;
synchronized (PAUSED_LOCK) {
PAUSED_LOCK.notifyAll();
}
System.out.println("Resumed...");
}
}
public void stopTask() {
if (state == TaskState.Running || state == TaskState.Paused) {
state = TaskState.Stopped;
System.out.println("Stopped...");
}
}
public boolean isStopped() {
return state == TaskState.Stopped;
}
public boolean isPaused() {
return state == TaskState.Paused;
}
protected void doPause() {
synchronized (PAUSED_LOCK) {
while (isPaused()) {
try {
PAUSED_LOCK.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
int index = 0;
while (!isStopped() && index < 1000) {
try {
Thread.sleep(25);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
doPause();
index++;
System.out.println(index);
}
stopTask(); // Make sure the task is marked as begin stopped ;)
}
}
}
The main criteria is you will need to pool isStopped and doPause at appropriate points to ensure that they are begin implemented as required...
To coordinate them use a CyclicBarrier.
To launch them all at the same time use a CountDownLatch.
Google the two classes above for many examples and explanations.
To fully understand what is happening read the Java Concurrency In Practice book.
I believe you can accomplish this by using Object.wait and Thread.interrupt.
Object.wait blocks until notify is called. So
private boolean paused;
private Object waitObject;
...
public void run() {
for ... {
if (this.paused) { this.waitObject.wait(); }
...
public void pause() { this.paused = true; }
public void resume() { this.paused = false; this.waitObject.notify(); }
Then you can call pause to pause the thread.
Thread.interrupt can help with stopping.
private boolean paused;
...
public void run() {
for ... {
// interrupted() is different from interrupt()!
if (this.iterrupted()) { break; }
...
To stop it, you would call interrupt() from another thread.
This is the basic idea, but there's a lot of details to worry about here. For example, wait can throw an InterruptedException you'll need to handle. Also, wait is not guaranteed to return only after a notify. It can return randomly. Here is a pair of tutorials:
Wait: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html
Interrupt: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/interrupt.html
I am trying to develop active object pattern in concurrent Java using java.util.concurrent classes.
I describe it using a Client and a Server. A sample Server is as:
class Server implements Runnable {
public final LinkedBlockingQueue que = new LinkedBlockingQueue();
private final ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
private Message currentMessage;
private boolean state = false;
public init() {
es.submit(this);
}
public void requestForServer() {
if (state) {
this.currentMessage.await();
}
state = true;
}
public void run() {
for(;;) {
Message m = que.take();
this.currentMessage = m;
this.es.submit(m);
}
}
}
And a sample Client:
class Client {
private Server server;
public Client(Server s) {
this.server = s;
}
public void doSomething() {
Message m = new Message(new Callable() {
public Object call() {
server.requestForServer();
}
});
this.server.que.add(m);
}
}
And a sample Message encapsulation is:
class Message<V> extends FutureTask<V> {
private Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private Condition condition = new Condition();
public Message(Callable<V> callable) {
super(callable);
}
public void run() {
try {
lock.lock();
super.run();
lock.unlock();
} catch(Exception e) {}
}
public void await() {
try {
condition.await();
} catch(Exception e) {}
}
public void signal() {
try {
condition.signalAll();
} catch(Exception e) {}
}
}
And a sample running code:
Server s = new Server();
Client c = new Client (s);
s.init();
c.doSomething();
I dropped some implementation details to get my message across.
Now, the problem is when in Server the state is true so the incoming message should wait and the await is called on the current message. However, I get IllegalMonitorStateException which means that the current message does not own the current thread to await on it. But, I believe this is strange since the current message gets called in the Server and its thread pool so the current message has also an access to the current thread of execution.
I'd be most thankful for any ideas or suggestions, or with a known working implementation of this pattern using java.util.concurrent. Thanks in advance.
UPDATE:
I discussed the solution I could deploy in this blog post. I hope it could help.
You have to actually acquire the lock when you await on its corresponding condition. Without that lock you cannot associate yourself to the condition directly. To demonstrate this:
public void await() {
lock.lock();
try {
condition.await();
} catch(Exception e) {}
finally{
lock.unlock();
}
}
That should resolve your IllegalMonitorStateException
On a side note of correctness you should always release a lock in a try{ } finally{ } manner, you can observe what I wrote as an example. The reason for this is if an exception occurs between lock().lock(); and super.run(); lock.unlock() will never be called.