We Keep Coding

SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor with a queue

I have a need to run some threads concurrently, but need to force each process to run in a new Thread (this is due to some ThreadLocal bleed that I don't have full control over). To do so, I have been using the SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor. However, the issue with this is that it doesn't maintain a queue that allows new tasks to be submitted once it's reached the concurrency limit. What I really need to do is have functionality like the SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor but where tasks can still be submitted even after the concurrency limit has been reached - I just want those tasks to wait in the queue until another slot frees up. This is what I have right now:
SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor taskExecutor = new SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor();
taskExecutor.setConcurrencyLimit(maxThreads);
return taskExecutor;
Is there some out-of-the-box solution for this, or do I need to write something custom?

To ensure you need to execute every task in a new Thread, You are basically against use of any ThreadPool (ThreadLocal behavior in a ThreadPool is something you need to get rid of, sooner or later).
To overcome this, you can simply produce something like this,
class ThreadPerTaskExecutor implements Executor {
public void execute(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
which executes the Runnable always in a new Thread.
Coming to a crude implementation, We can do something like
final Executor executor = new ThreadPerTaskExecutor();
final ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
service.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println("Executed inside Thread pool with concurrency level 3"
+ Thread.currentThread().toString());
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(3000); //Some expensive operations here.
System.out.println(
"Executed inside new Thread always" + Thread.currentThread().toString());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
}
This can be improved with lambdas as well after Java 8. Hope this sheds the basic idea.

Is there some out-of-the-box solution for this, or do I need to write something custom?
I think there is no out-of-the-box solution for this, and you need to write your own code for this.
You can extend the SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor for simpler/quicker implementation. Example:
public class SimpleAsyncQueueTaskExecutor extends SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor {
private Queue<Runnable> queue = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Runnable>();
private AtomicInteger concurrencyValue = new AtomicInteger(0);
private void checkAndExecuteFromQueue() {
int count = concurrencyValue.get();
if (isThrottleActive() && !queue.isEmpty() &&
(count < getConcurrencyLimit())) {
Runnable task = queue.poll();
concurrencyValue.incrementAndGet();
doExecute(new ConcurrencyThrottlingRunnable(task));
}
}
private void afterExecute(Runnable task) {
queue.remove(task);
concurrencyValue.decrementAndGet();
// Check and execute other tasks
checkAndExecuteFromQueue();
}
#Override
public void execute(Runnable task, long startTimeout) {
Assert.notNull(task, "Runnable must not be null");
if (isThrottleActive() && startTimeout > TIMEOUT_IMMEDIATE) {
queue.offer(task);
checkAndExecuteFromQueue();
} else {
doExecute(task);
}
}
private class ConcurrencyThrottlingRunnable implements Runnable {
private final Runnable target;
public ConcurrencyThrottlingRunnable(Runnable target) {
this.target = target;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
this.target.run();
}
finally {
afterExecute(this.target);
}
}
}
This example code just add a queue, and override the execute method.
Hope this help.

Wait for java async call to complete

I have a async function that calls other async function. In Java, how to wait on untill the async call completes(including any nested async calls in it).
I already Future callable But no luck.
Sample code:
void asyncMehodA(){ }
void asyncMethodB() {
asyncMehodA();
}
I tried the Future callable in the following way:
final Callable<Void> callable1 = new Callable<Void>() {
#Override
public Void call() {
asyncMethodB();
return null;
}
};
final Future<Void> callableFuture = mExecutor.submit(callable1);
try {
callableFuture.get();
} catch (final InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {}
hoping that the get function will block the execusion untill the async return. But seems the get function will fire the async call and reurn null. not waiting for the asycn to complete its execusion. I added log statements in the verified the same. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. suggest any other concepts that can aid me.

Here is an example using CountDownLatch.
package chapter13;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class BST {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Runnable runnableA = () -> {
System.out.println("Runnable A");
latch.countDown();
System.out.println("Runnable A finished");
};
Runnable runnableB = () -> {
System.out.println("Runnable B");
executorService.submit(runnableA);
try {
System.out.println("Runnable B waiting for A to complete");
latch.await();
System.out.println("Runnable B finished");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Thread interrupted");
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
};
executorService.submit(runnableB);
Thread.sleep(10);
shutDown(executorService);
}
private static void shutDown(ExecutorService executorService) {
executorService.shutdown();
try {
if (!executorService.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) {
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
}
}
I use Thread.sleep() method to sleep the main thread, because shuting down the pool immediately after task B was submitted, might cause the pool to stop accepting new tasks before task A is submitted by task B.

One way would be to use a java locking method.
An example:
private AtomicBoolean processed = new AtomicBoolean(true) ;
private String result = null ;
public String doAndWait()
{
synchronized(processed) {
doSomethingAsync() ;
processed.wait();
}
return result ;
}
public void doSomethingAsync()
{
...
result="OK";
synchronized(processed) {
processed.notify();
}
}

RejectedExecutionException coming from single thread executor

Below is my method in which I have single thread executor to execute some task in the run method.
private void trigger(final Packet packet) {
// this line is throwing exception
Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// some code here
}
});
}
Below is the exception I am getting and I am not sure why? What is the best way to fix this?
error= java.util.concurrent.RejectedExecutionException: Task com.abc.stuffProc$2#e033da0 rejected from java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor#76c2da8f[Terminated, pool size = 0, active threads = 0, queued tasks = 0, completed tasks = 0]
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$AbortPolicy.rejectedExecution(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:2048)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.reject(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:821)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.execute(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1372)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$DelegatedExecutorService.execute(Executors.java:628)
What happens if my trigger method is called many times and it is still working on the run method from my previous threads? Will it launch as many threads or it will wait for one thread to finish and then start another thread?

See here: What could be the cause of RejectedExecutionException
as you could see from the error log, your ThreadPoolExecutor is Terminated.
Maybe this is what you want:
private void trigger(final Packet packet) {
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// some code here
}
});
}
private final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
EDIT Reproduce the Problem with:
public static void main(String[] args) {
final ExecutorTest et = new ExecutorTest();
for (int i = 0; i < 50000; i++) {
et.trigger(i);
}
System.out.println("Done");
}
private void trigger(int i) {
try {
Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().execute(() -> {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (final InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
} catch (final Exception e) {
System.out.println("Test " + i + " with " + Thread.activeCount());
e.printStackTrace();
}
}

Create ThreadPoolExecutor outside of your trigger method. You should not create newSingleThreadExecutor for every call.
private ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors());
private void trigger(final Packet packet) {
executorService .execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// some code here
}
});
}
Regarding your exception, please check execute method description.
public void execute(Runnable command)
Executes the given task sometime in the future. The task may execute in a new thread or in an existing pooled thread. If the task cannot be submitted for execution, either because this executor has been shutdown or because its capacity has been reached, the task is handled by the current RejectedExecutionHandler.
Since it's unbounded queue, most likely you have called shutdown some where else in your code.

wait for N-1 out of N threads to end, then issue an instruction for the last thread

So, i apologize for the title. It's quite hard to explain in one sentence what i would like to do if you have no idea on how it is called.
So assume i can only use primitive thread functions (wait, notify, no concurrent package)
The program has 3 threads, all of them are the same and are called by the main thread. They behave normally until one of the three get an exception and so it must wait for the end of the remaining 2 threads in order to start a recovery process.
I was thinking about a static variable but I'm not really sure about it, i would love to keep it as simple as possible.
Each thread starts at the same time.

I don't see any reason why you can't use a static variable like you suggest. Here's how I would do it with an inner class...
private static boolean running = true;
public void test26546397() {
while (true) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
Thread t3 = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
t3.join();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
running = true;
// Do recovery
}
}
public class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
// doStuff
} catch (Exception ex) {
running = false;
}
}
}
}
I would of course replace the while (true) with something a little more suitable.

I think you need java.concurrent.CountdownLatch, however if the java.concurrent package is not available to you can code this yourself using Object.wait/notify and synchronized blocks.
The latch can then be decremented in a finally {} on each Thread, this will be run if the Thread completes, or an exception occurs.
Your main program then just needs to wait for count to become 0.
public class StackOverflow26546397 {
static class CountdownLatch {
private int count;
private Object monitor = new Object();
public CountdownLatch(int count) {
this.count = count;
}
public void countDown() {
synchronized (monitor) {
count--;
monitor.notifyAll();
}
}
public void await() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (monitor) {
while (count > 0) {
monitor.wait();
}
}
}
}
static class Job implements Runnable {
private CountdownLatch latch;
public Job(CountdownLatch latch) {
this.latch = latch;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// do work.
Thread.sleep((long) (Math.random() * 3000d));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//
} finally {
latch.countDown();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
CountdownLatch latch = new CountdownLatch(3);
new Thread(new Job(latch)).start();
new Thread(new Job(latch)).start();
new Thread(new Job(latch)).start();
latch.await();
System.out.println("All threads finished");
}
}

Not sure what you are trying to do but this is as simple as I can think of (just native concurrency):
Create a static or shared volatile boolean
private static volatile boolean exceptionOccured=false
Set the above to 'true' when exception occurs:
....}catch(Exception e){
exceptionOccured=true;
}
Check this periodically in you normal thread flow:
if (exceptionOccured)
//enter you synchronized call here
the synchronized method could look something like:
public synchronized void checkAndRecover(){
//decrement a counter or other logic to identify which is the last Thread and then
//perform any recovery logic
}

How to notify another thread

I want to know the best way how to notify another thread. For example, I have a background thread:
public void StartBackgroundThread(){
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//Do something big...
//THEN HOW TO NOTIFY MAIN THREAD?
}
}).start();
}
When it finished it has to notify main thread? If somebody knows the best way how to do this I'll appreciate it!

The typical answer is a BlockingQueue. Both BackgroundThread (often called the Producer) and MainThread (often called the Consumer) share a single instance of the queue (perhaps they get it when they are instantiated). BackgroundThread calls queue.put(message) each time it has a new message and MainThread calls 'queue.take()which will block until there's a message to receive. You can get fancy with timeouts and peeking but typically people want aBlockingQueueinstance such asArrayBlockingQueue`.

Purely based on your question you could do this:
public class test
{
Object syncObj = new Object();
public static void main(String args[])
{
new test();
}
public test()
{
startBackgroundThread();
System.out.println("Main thread waiting...");
try
{
synchronized(syncObj)
{
syncObj.wait();
}
}
catch(InterruptedException ie) { }
System.out.println("Main thread exiting...");
}
public void startBackgroundThread()
{
(new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
//Do something big...
System.out.println("Background Thread doing something big...");
//THEN HOW TO NOTIFY MAIN THREAD?
synchronized(syncObj)
{
System.out.println("Background Thread notifing...");
syncObj.notify();
}
System.out.println("Background Thread exiting...");
}
})).start();
}
}
and see this output
PS C:\Users\java> javac test.java
PS C:\Users\java> java test
Main thread waiting...
Background Thread doing something big...
Background Thread notifing...
Background Thread exiting...
Main thread exiting...

Just call notify()
public void run() {
try {
while ( true ) {
putMessage();
sleep( 1000 );
}
}
catch( InterruptedException e ) { }
}
private synchronized void putMessage() throws InterruptedException {
while ( messages.size() == MAXQUEUE )
wait();
messages.addElement( new java.util.Date().toString() );
notify();
}

You can't "notify the main thread".
The best approach is to use an ExecutorService, like this for example:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
// in main thread
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<?> future = executorService.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//Do something big...
}
});
future.get(); // blocks until the Runnable finishes
The classes are written specially to deal with asynchronous operations, and all the code in there is already written for you and bullet-proof.
Edit
If you don't want to block the main thread while waiting, wait within another thread:
final Future<?> future = executorService.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//Do something big...
}
});
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
future.get(); // blocks until the other Runnable finishes
// Do something after the other runnable completes
}
}).start();

One thread notifying another thread is not a good way to do it. Its better to have 1 master thread that gives the slave thread work. The slave thread is always running and waits until it receives work. I recommend that you draw two columns and determine exactly where each thread needs to wait.
public void run()
{
//Do something big...
synchronized(this)
{
done = true;
}
}
Java includes libraries that make this really easy see ExecutorService and the following post
Producer/Consumer threads using a Queue