We Keep Coding

Java : how to end and get out from inheritIO process [duplicate]

I need a solution to properly stop the thread in Java.
I have IndexProcessorclass which implements the Runnable interface:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
#Override
public void run() {
boolean run = true;
while (run) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
}
And I have ServletContextListener class which starts and stops the thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor());
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
thread.interrupt();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
But when I shutdown tomcat, I get the exception in my IndexProcessor class:
2012-06-09 17:04:50,671 [Thread-3] ERROR IndexProcessor Exception
java.lang.InterruptedException: sleep interrupted
at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
at lt.ccl.searchengine.processor.IndexProcessor.run(IndexProcessor.java:22)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
I am using JDK 1.6. So the question is:
How can I stop the thread and not throw any exceptions?
P.S. I do not want to use .stop(); method because it is deprecated.

Using Thread.interrupt() is a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. In fact, it's probably preferrable to a flag as suggested above. The reason being that if you're in an interruptable blocking call (like Thread.sleep or using java.nio Channel operations), you'll actually be able to break out of those right away.
If you use a flag, you have to wait for the blocking operation to finish and then you can check your flag. In some cases you have to do this anyway, such as using standard InputStream/OutputStream which are not interruptable.
In that case, when a thread is interrupted, it will not interrupt the IO, however, you can easily do this routinely in your code (and you should do this at strategic points where you can safely stop and cleanup)
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// cleanup and stop execution
// for example a break in a loop
}
Like I said, the main advantage to Thread.interrupt() is that you can immediately break out of interruptable calls, which you can't do with the flag approach.

In the IndexProcessor class you need a way of setting a flag which informs the thread that it will need to terminate, similar to the variable run that you have used just in the class scope.
When you wish to stop the thread, you set this flag and call join() on the thread and wait for it to finish.
Make sure that the flag is thread safe by using a volatile variable or by using getter and setter methods which are synchronised with the variable being used as the flag.
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean running = true;
public void terminate() {
running = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
running = false;
}
}
}
}
Then in SearchEngineContextListener:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
runnable = new IndexProcessor();
thread = new Thread(runnable);
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
runnable.terminate();
thread.join();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}

Simple answer:
You can stop a thread INTERNALLY in one of two common ways:
The run method hits a return subroutine.
Run method finishes, and returns implicitly.
You can also stop threads EXTERNALLY:
Call system.exit (this kills your entire process)
Call the thread object's interrupt() method *
See if the thread has an implemented method that sounds like it would work (like kill() or stop())
*: The expectation is that this is supposed to stop a thread. However, what the thread actually does when this happens is entirely up to what the developer wrote when they created the thread implementation.
A common pattern you see with run method implementations is a while(boolean){}, where the boolean is typically something named isRunning, it's a member variable of its thread class, it's volatile, and typically accessible by other threads by a setter method of sorts, e.g. kill() { isRunnable=false; }. These subroutines are nice because they allow the thread to release any resources it holds before terminating.

You should always end threads by checking a flag in the run() loop (if any).
Your thread should look like this:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean execute;
#Override
public void run() {
this.execute = true;
while (this.execute) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
this.execute = false;
}
}
}
public void stopExecuting() {
this.execute = false;
}
}
Then you can end the thread by calling thread.stopExecuting(). That way the thread is ended clean, but this takes up to 15 seconds (due to your sleep).
You can still call thread.interrupt() if it's really urgent - but the prefered way should always be checking the flag.
To avoid waiting for 15 seconds, you can split up the sleep like this:
...
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
for (int i = 0; (i < 150) && this.execute; i++) {
Thread.sleep((long) 100);
}
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
...

Typically, a thread is terminated when it's interrupted. So, why not use the native boolean? Try isInterrupted():
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
// do stuff
}
}});
t.start();
// Sleep a second, and then interrupt
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
t.interrupt();
ref- How can I kill a thread? without using stop();

For synchronizing threads I prefer using CountDownLatch which helps threads to wait until the process being performed complete. In this case, the worker class is set up with a CountDownLatch instance with a given count. A call to await method will block until the current count reaches zero due to invocations of the countDown method or the timeout set is reached. This approach allows interrupting a thread instantly without having to wait for the specified waiting time to elapse:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private final CountDownLatch countdownlatch;
public IndexProcessor(CountDownLatch countdownlatch) {
this.countdownlatch = countdownlatch;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (!countdownlatch.await(15000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
LOGGER.debug("Processing...");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
When you want to finish execution of the other thread, execute countDown on the CountDownLatch and join the thread to the main thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
private CountDownLatch countdownLatch = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
countdownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Thread thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor(countdownLatch));
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (countdownLatch != null)
{
countdownLatch.countDown();
}
if (thread != null) {
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
}
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}

Some supplementary info.
Both flag and interrupt are suggested in the Java doc.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concurrency/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
private volatile Thread blinker;
public void stop() {
blinker = null;
}
public void run() {
Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (blinker == thisThread) {
try {
Thread.sleep(interval);
} catch (InterruptedException e){
}
repaint();
}
}
For a thread that waits for long periods (e.g., for input), use Thread.interrupt
public void stop() {
Thread moribund = waiter;
waiter = null;
moribund.interrupt();
}

I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
threadCheckChat = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
threadCheckChat.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}

Brian Goetz in his book suggests to use Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() flag and interrupt() method for cancellation.
Blocking library methods like sleep() and wait() try to detect when a thread has been interrupted and return early. They respond to interruption by clearing the interrupted status and throwing InterruptedException, indicating that the blocking operation completed early due to interruption.
The JVM makes no guarantees on how quickly a blocking method will detect interruption, but in practice this happens reasonably quickly.
class PrimeProducer extends Thread {
private final BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue;
PrimeProducer(BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run() {
try {
BigInteger p = BigInteger.ONE;
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
queue.put(p = p.nextProbablePrime()); // blocking operation
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed) {
// allow thread to exit
}
// any code here will still be executed
}
public void cancel() {
interrupt();
}
}
If you put any code after catch block, it will still be executed as we swallow InterruptedException to exit from run() gracefully.
Just a couple words on how interrupt() works.
If interrupt is called on non-blocked thread, interrupt() will not cause InterruptedException inside run() but will just change flag isInterrupted to true and thread will continue its work until it reaches Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() check and exit from run().
If interrupt is called on blocked thread (sleep() or wait()was called, in our case it's put() that might block a thread) then isInterrupted will be set to false and InterruptedException will be thrown inside put().

Check if external service is running

I have to check if an external service is up and running or is hung. If the external process is hung, I have to kill it and restart it.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
To check if the process is hung, I try to invoke it. If it is hung, I wont get any response and I would know that the service is hung.
The problem is when I try to invoke the process, and if it is struck, even the java thread would be hung, So I thought I could create a thread and invoke the process in that thread.
I will have a counter in parent thread and if the child thread does not return in some time, I would kill (call inturrupt()) on it.
But even, the parent thread hangs here.
I have a Class MyThreadHandler as follows:
public class MyThreadHandler {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyThreadHandler myThreadHandler = new MyThreadHandler();
myThreadHandler.handleThread();
}
public void handleThread() {
System.out.println("STARTING LOOPER THREAD");
boolean isRunning = false;
int counter = 0;
MyThreaad myThread = new MyThreaad();
if (!isRunning) {
myThread.start();
System.out.println("aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa");
isRunning = true;
}
while (true) {
System.out.println("while loop");
counter++;
if (!myThread.isAlive() || counter == 1000) {
System.out.println("HUNG THREAD::: Killing thread");
myThread.interrupt();
break;
}
}
}
}
My Thread class is as follows:
public class MyThreaad extends Thread{
public void run() {
System.out.println("STARTING LOOPER THREAD");
MyLooper myLooper = new MyLooper();
myLooper.loopIndefinite();
};
}
And MyLooper:
public class MyLooper {
public void loopIndefinite() {
while (true){
System.out.println("a");
}
}
}

I suspect the problem is that both loops stay busy. In this situation, the thread scheduler may execute one loop for a long time, and the other (parent) appears hung.
The MyLooper loop can not be changed, I guess, because it simulates the hung process. The following could be done to make sure the parent thread gets some execution time:
public void handleThread() {
System.out.println("STARTING LOOPER THREAD");
boolean isRunning = false;
int counter = 0;
MyThreaad myThread = new MyThreaad();
myThread.setPriority(Thread.MIN_PRIORITY); // <=== set priority
if (!isRunning) {
myThread.start();
System.out.println("aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa");
isRunning = true;
}
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(100); // <=== sleep
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("while loop");
counter++;
if (!myThread.isAlive() || counter == 1000) {
System.out.println("HUNG THREAD::: Killing thread");
myThread.interrupt();
break;
}
}
}
I added 2 lines, one to set the thread priority of the "hanging thread" to a low value, such that the parent thread gets execution time even when the thread is busy. The second line is a sleep, this makes sure the parent thread doesn't take all the available execution time.

If you don't check for the interrupted state there's no chance that myThread.interrupt() will do what you want.
you have to add the following in the loopIndefinite method:
if(Thread.interrupted()) throw new InterruptedException();
Your loops are very aggressive for the CPU, you should not stress CPU like that. It's better to use ExecutorServices and Future as suggested by Fildor.

Looking for a solid explanation on how aquire and release work with semaphores to sync threads

I am trying to manipulate this program to print ":---)))))" repeatedly.
I understand that a semaphore is a way of controlling threads, and acquire essentially acquires a permit (reads) and release returns a permit back to the semaphore. (writes)
I've tried manipulating the number of permits when initializing the semaphores, but I am not understanding how to sync them together because I can't figure out how exactly the semaphores operate with how they acquire and release.
I am looking for a helpful explanation that pertains to Java in the context of only using semaphores, acquire and release and how they work together to properly put the threads "in sync"
import java.lang.Thread;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class ThreadSync {
private static boolean runFlag = true;
private static Semaphore canPrintC = new Semaphore(1);
private static Semaphore canPrintD = new Semaphore(0);
private static Semaphore canPrintP = new Semaphore(0);
public static void main(String [] args) {
// Create and start each runnable
Runnable task1 = new TaskPrintC();
Runnable task2 = new TaskPrintD();
Runnable task3 = new TaskPrintP();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(task1);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(task2);
Thread thread3 = new Thread(task3);
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
thread3.start();
// Let them run for 500 ms
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
runFlag = false;
thread3.interrupt();
thread2.interrupt();
thread1.interrupt();
}
public static class TaskPrintC implements Runnable {
public void run() {
while (runFlag) {
try {
canPrintC.acquire();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.printf("%s", ":");
canPrintD.release();
}
}
}
public static class TaskPrintD implements Runnable {
public void run() {
while (runFlag) {
try {
canPrintD.acquire();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.printf("%s", "-");
canPrintP.release();
}
}
}
public static class TaskPrintP implements Runnable {
public void run() {
while (runFlag) {
try {
canPrintP.acquire();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.printf("%s", ")");
canPrintC.release();
}
}
}
}

Threads execute tasks and semaphores can help you to let tasks (or runnable objects) know each other's state (e.g. task A waits for input from task B and task B can signal task A that input is available). The difference between a task and a thread is important.
To stress this point, I have taken your example and made one runnable class that performs the task of printing a character a number of times (configured via variables in the constructor). To mimic the serialized behavior (tasks run after each other), the runnable is also aware of the next runnable that should perform the print task.
To complete the example I also ensured that the thread that is executing the main-method is aware of when the tasks have completed, so that the program stops at the proper time. A CountDownLatch is used in this case (a CountDownLatch is a very simple variation of a Semaphore).
The example below might be a bit hard to understand, but it shows some good practices (re-use code, using a stop-flag instead of interrupt, use an executor to run tasks, cleanup and stop tasks in case of error). It also shows how Semaphores can orchestrate the execution of tasks.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
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 ChainedSemaphoreTasks {
// amount of times chained tasks are executed.
static int MAX_CHAINED_LOOPS = 3;
// helper to let main-thread know when chained loops have been executed.
final static CountDownLatch MAX_LOOPS_REACHED = new CountDownLatch(1);
public static void main(String[] args) {
String printChars = ":-)";
int[] repeatChars = { 1, 3, 5};
List<ChainedTask> tasks = buildTasks(printChars, repeatChars);
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (ChainedTask task : tasks) {
executor.execute(task);
}
try {
// Trigger first task to start running.
tasks.get(0).triggerPrintTask();
// wait for loop to complete, but not too long.
if (!MAX_LOOPS_REACHED.await(5000L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
throw new RuntimeException("Chained tasks loop did not complete within timeout.");
}
long waitStart = System.currentTimeMillis();
executor.shutdown();
if (executor.awaitTermination(1000L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
System.out.println("All tasks stopped within " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - waitStart) + " ms.");
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("Not all chained tasks stopped within timeout.");
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
// cleanup
try {
tasks.get(0).stop();
} catch (Exception e2) {
e2.printStackTrace();
}
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
static List<ChainedTask> buildTasks(String printChars, int[] repeatChars) {
List<ChainedTask> tasks = new ArrayList<ChainedTask>();
int maxTasks = printChars.length();
if (maxTasks != repeatChars.length) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Amount of repeats per pritn character must match amount of characters.");
}
for (int i = 0; i < maxTasks; i++) {
ChainedTask task = new ChainedTask(printChars.charAt(i), repeatChars[i]);
tasks.add(task);
if (i > 0) {
tasks.get(i - 1).setNextTask(task);
}
}
// make last task trigger first task - creates an endless loop.
tasks.get(maxTasks - 1).setNextTask(tasks.get(0));
tasks.get(maxTasks - 1).setLastTask(true);
return tasks;
}
static AtomicInteger chainedLoopsCount = new AtomicInteger();
static class ChainedTask implements Runnable {
// Semaphore to trigger execution
Semaphore performTask = new Semaphore(0);
// If stop is true, task must finish.
// stop must be volatile to ensure updated value is always visible.
volatile boolean stop = false;
// The last task is responsible for stopping execution
boolean lastTask;
// The next task to run after this task.
ChainedTask nextTask;
char printChar;
int repeatAmount;
ChainedTask(char printChar, int repeatAmount) {
this.printChar = printChar;
this.repeatAmount = repeatAmount;
System.out.println("Created " + printChar + " / " + repeatAmount);
}
void triggerPrintTask() {
performTask.release(repeatAmount);
}
void stop() {
// first indicate to stop
stop = true;
// then release a permit to pickup the stop sign.
performTask.release();
// also stop next task, unless this is the last task
if (!isLastTask()) {
getNextTask().stop();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (!stop) {
runTask();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Stopped " + printChar + " / " + repeatAmount);
}
void runTask() throws Exception {
// wait for our turn
performTask.acquire();
// must check 'stop' after getting permit, see the stop-method:
// first stop is set to true and then a permit is released.
if (stop) {
return;
}
// print text for loop-amount
do {
System.out.print(printChar);
} while (performTask.tryAcquire());
if (isLastTask()) {
System.out.println();
// check if we should stop
if (chainedLoopsCount.incrementAndGet() >= MAX_CHAINED_LOOPS) {
// since this is the last task, the next task is the first task.
// stopping the first task will call the stop-method on all tasks, including this one.
getNextTask().stop();
// signal main-thread we are done.
MAX_LOOPS_REACHED.countDown();
}
// Sleep for a long time to test what happens when last task hangs.
// Should trigger the "cleanup" code in the main method.
// Thread.sleep(10000);
}
// trigger next chained task to run
// this has no effect if next chained task was stopped
getNextTask().triggerPrintTask();
}
void setNextTask(ChainedTask nextTask) {
this.nextTask = nextTask;
}
ChainedTask getNextTask() {
return nextTask;
}
void setLastTask(boolean lastTask) {
this.lastTask = lastTask;
}
boolean isLastTask() {
return lastTask;
}
}
}

Semaphore – to solve Producer/Consumer problem
A high level explanation of semaphore.
A semaphore contains a count indicating whether a resource is locked or available. Semaphore is a signaling mechanism (“I am done, you can carry on.”). The resource itself may not be thread safe.
Producer
semObject.Post(); // Send the signal
Increase the semaphore count by 1. If a thread is waiting on the
specified semaphore, it is awakened.[1]
Consumer
semObject.Wait(); // Wait for the signal
When the semaphore count is zero, the thread calling this function
will wait for the semaphore. When the semaphore count is nonzero, the
count will be decremented by 1 and the thread calling this function
will continue.[1]
Reference
[1] Massa, Anthony J., Embedded software development with eCos, Pearson Education, Inc., 2002

How can I start a thread from another and restart a thread after execution?

I have 2 threads, the "main" thread which starts a secondary thread to run a little process.
The "main" thread must wait for the secondary thread for a few of seconds to complete the process, after that time, the "main" thread must start again no matter what happened with the process of the secondary thread.
If the secondary process ended earlier, the "main" thread must start to work again.
How can I start a thread from another, wait for the end of execution, and restart the thread after?
I have a code here, but the ExampleRun class, must wait, for example, 10 sec and start again, no matter what happend with MyProcess
public class ExampleRun {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyProcess t = new MyProcess();
t.start();
synchronized (t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Error");
}
}
}
}
public class MyProcess extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println("start");
synchronized (this) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
try {
System.out.println("I sleep");
sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
flag = true;
System.out.println("Wake up");
notify();
}
}
}

The simplest way to achieve what you want is to use Thread.join(timeout).
Also, do not use synchronized, wait, or notify on Thread objects. This will interfere with the Thread.join implementation. See the documentation for details.
Here's what your main program would look like:
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyProcess t = new MyProcess();
t.start();
try {
t.join(10000L);
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
System.out.println("interrupted");
}
System.out.println("Main thread resumes");
}
Note that when the main thread resumes after the join() call, it can't tell whether the child thread completed or whether the call timed out. To test this, call t.isAlive().
Your child thread of course could do anything, but it's important for it not to use synchronized, wait, or notify on itself. For example, here's a rewrite that avoids using these calls:
class MyProcess extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println("MyProcess starts");
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
try {
System.out.println("MyProcess sleeps");
sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("MyProcess finishes");
}
}

You can do this with a simple lock method:
public static void main (String[] args)
{
// create new lock object
Object lock = new Object();
// create and start thread
Thread t = new Thread(() ->
{
// try to sleep 1 sec
try { Thread.sleep(1000); }
catch (InterruptedException e) { /* do something */ }
// notify main thread
synchronized (lock) { lock.notifyAll(); }
};
t.start();
// wait for second thread to finish
synchronized (lock)
{
while (t.isAlive())
lock.wait();
}
// second thread finished
System.out.println("second thread finished :)");
}

You could call Thread.join() on the Thread you want to wait for, per the Javadoc,
Waits for this thread to die.
Alternatively, you could use a Future and simply call get(), from its' Javadoc,
Waits if necessary for the computation to complete, and then retrieves its result.

Getting a thread to pause - Thread.wait()/Thread.notify()

I'm trying to understand how threads work, and I wrote a simple example where I want to create and start a new thread, the thread, display the numbers from 1 to 1000 in the main thread, resume the secondary thread, and display the numbers from 1 to 1000 in the secondary thread. When I leave out the Thread.wait()/Thread.notify() it behaves as expected, both threads display a few numbers at a time. When I add those functions in, for some reason the main thread's numbers are printed second instead of first. What am I doing wrong?
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
synchronized(t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}

You misunderstand how wait/notify works. wait does not block the thread on which it is called; it blocks the current thread until notify is called on the same object (so if you have threads A and B and, while in thread A, called B.wait(), this will stop thread A and not thread B - for as long as B.notify() is not called).
So, in your specific example, if you want main thread to execute first, you need to put wait() inside the secondary thread. Like this:
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}
However, even this code may not work like you want. In a scenario where the main thread gets to the notify() part before the secondary thread had a chance to get to the wait() part (unlikely in your case, but still possible - you can observe it if you put Thread.sleep at the beginning of the secondary thread), the secondary thread will never be waken up. Therefore, the safest method would be something similar to this:
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
notify();
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
synchronized (t) {
t.start();
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}
In this example the output is completely deterministic. Here's what happens:
Main thread creates a new t object.
Main thread gets a lock on the t monitor.
Main thread starts the t thread.
(these can happen in any order)
Secondary thread starts, but since main thread still owns the t monitor, the secondary thread cannot proceed and must wait (because its first statement is synchronized (this), not because it happens to be the t object - all the locks, notifies and waits could as well be done on an object completely unrelated to any of the 2 threads with the same result.
Primary thread continues, gets to the t.wait() part and suspends its execution, releasing the t monitor that it synchronized on.
Secondary thread gains ownership of t monitor.
Secondary thread calls t.notify(), waking the main thread. The main thread cannot continue just yet though, since the secondary thread still holds ownership of the t monitor.
Secondary thread calls t.wait(), suspends its execution and releases the t monitor.
Primary thread can finally continue, since the t monitor is now available.
Primary thread gains ownership of the t monitor but releases it right away.
Primary thread does its number counting thing.
Primary thread again gains ownership of the t monitor.
Primary thread calls t.notify(), waking the secondary thread. The secondary thread cannot continue just yet, because the primary thread still holds the t monitor.
Primary thread releases the t monitor and terminates.
Secondary thread gains ownership of the t monitor, but releases it right away.
Secondary thread does its number counting thing and then terminates.
The entire application terminates.
As you can see, even in such a deceptively simple scenario there is a lot going on.

You are lucky that your program terminates at all.
When you call t.wait() your main threads stops and waits indefinitely on a notification.
It never gets it, but I believe is awaken by spurious wakeup when the secondary thread finishes. (Read here on what a spurious wakeup is).

ExampleThread doesn't wait() or notify(), and isn't synchronized on anything. So it will run whenever it can without any coordination with other threads.
The main thread is waiting for a notification which never comes (this notification should be sent by another thread). My guess is that when the ExampleThread dies, the main thread is woken "spuriously," and completes.
The thread that should wait for another to complete must perform the call to wait() inside a loop that checks for a condition:
class ExampleThread extends Thread {
private boolean ready = false;
synchronized void ready() {
ready = true;
notifyAll();
}
#Override
public void run() {
/* Wait to for readiness to be signaled. */
synchronized (this) {
while (!ready)
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
return; /* Interruption means abort. */
}
}
/* Now do your work. */
...
Then in your main thread:
ExampleThread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
/* Do your work. */
...
/* Then signal the other thread. */
t.ready();