We Keep Coding

Waking up a thread without risking to get blocked

I have a worker thread running indefinitely, which goes to sleep for one minute if there's nothing to do. Sometimes, another piece of code produces some work and wants to wake the worker thread immediately.
So I did something like this (code for illustration only):
class Worker {
public void run() {
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
if (hasWork()) {
doIt();
} else {
wait(60_000);
}
}
public synchronized wakeMeUpInside() {
notify();
}
}
What I dislike is having to enter the monitor only for waking something up, which means that the notifying thread may be delayed for no good reason. As the choices of native synchronization are limited, I thought I'd switch to Condition, but it has exactly the same problem:
An implementation may (and typically does) require that the current thread hold the lock associated with this Condition when this method is called.

Here's a semaphore based solution:
class Worker {
// If 0 there's no work available
private workAvailableSem = new Semaphore(0);
public void run() {
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
// Try to obtain a permit waiting up to 60 seconds to get one
boolean hasWork = workAvailableSem.tryAquire(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
if (hasWork) {
doIt();
}
}
public wakeMeUpInside() {
workAvailableSem.release(1);
}
}
I'm not 100% sure this meets your needs. A few things to note:
This will add one permit each time wakeMeUpInside is called. Thus if two threads wake up the Worker it will run doIt twice without blocking. You can extend the example to avoid that.
This waits 60 seconds for work to do. If none is available it'll end up back in the run method which will send it immediately back to the step method which will just wait again. I did this because I'm assuming you had some reason why you wanted to run every 60 seconds even if there's no work. If that's not the case just call aquire and you'll wait indefinitely for work.
As per comments below the OP wants to run only once. While you could call drainPermits in that case a cleaner solution is just to use a LockSupport like so:
class Worker {
// We need a reference to the thread to wake it
private Thread workerThread = null;
// Is there work available
AtomicBoolean workAvailable = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public void run() {
workerThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
// Wait until work is available or 60 seconds have passed
ThreadSupport.parkNanos(TimeUnit.MINUTES.toNanos(1));
if (workAvailable.getAndSet(false)) {
doIt();
}
}
public wakeMeUpInside() {
// NOTE: potential race here depending on desired semantics.
// For example, if doIt() will do all work we don't want to
// set workAvailable to true if the doIt loop is running.
// There are ways to work around this but the desired
// semantics need to be specified.
workAvailable.set(true);
ThreadSupport.unpark(workerThread);
}
}

Safely pausing and resuming a thread

I want to create a thread to make some HTTP requests every few seconds and is easy to pause and resume at a moments notice.
Is the way below preferred, safe and efficient?
public class Facebook extends Thread {
public boolean running = false;
public void startThread() {
running = true;
}
public void stopThread() {
running = false;
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
while(running) {
//HTTP Calls
Facebook.sleep(2000);
}
}
}
}

Your Code:
In your example, the boolean should be volatile boolean to operate properly. The other issue is if running == false your thread just burns CPU in a tight loop, and you probably would want to use object monitors or a Condition to actually wait idly for the flag to become true again.
Timer Option:
I would suggest simply creating a Timer for this. Each Timer implicitly gets its own thread, which is what you are trying to accomplish.
Then create a TimerTask (FacebookTask below is this) that performs your task and from your main control class, no explicit threads necessary, something like:
Timer t;
void resumeRequests () {
if (t == null) { // otherwise its already running
t = new Timer();
t.scheduleAtFixedRate(new FacebookTask(), 0, 2000);
}
}
void pauseRequests () {
if (t != null) { // otherwise its not running
t.cancel();
t = null;
}
}
Note that above, resumeRequests() will cause a request to happen immediately upon resume (as specified by the 0 delay parameter); you could theoretically increase the request rate if you paused and resumed repeatedly in less than 2000ms. This doesn't seem like it will be an issue to you; but an alternative implementation is to keep the timer running constantly, and have a volatile bool flag in the FacebookTask that you can set to enable/disable it (so if it's e.g. false it doesn't make the request, but continues checking every 2000ms). Pick whichever makes the most sense for you.
Other Options:
You could also use a scheduled executor service as fge mentions in comments. It has more features than a timer and is equally easy to use; they'll also scale well if you need to add more tasks in the future.
In any case there's no real reason to bother with Threads directly here; there are plenty of great tools in the JDK for this job.

The suggestion to using a Timer would work better. If you want to do the threading manually, though, then something more like this would be safer and better:
class Facebook implements Runnable {
private final Object monitor = new Object();
public boolean running = false;
public void startThread() {
synchronized (monitor) {
running = true;
monitor.notifyAll();
}
}
public void stopThread() {
synchronized (monitor) {
running = false;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
try {
synchronized (monitor) {
// Wait until somebody calls startThread()
while (!running) {
monitor.wait();
}
}
//HTTP Calls
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
break;
}
}
}
}
Note in particular:
You should generally implement Runnable instead of subclassing Thread, then use that Runnable to specify the work for a generic Thread. The work a thread performs is not the same thing as the thread itself, so this yields a better model. It's also more flexible if you want to be able to perform the same work by other means (e.g. a Timer).
You need to use some form of synchronization whenever you want two threads to exchange data (such as the state of the running instance variable). There are classes, AtomicBoolean for example, that have such synchronization built in, but sometimes there are advantages to synchronizing manually.
In the particular case that you want one thread to stop work until another thread instructs it to continue, you generally want to use Object.wait() and a corresponding Object.notify() or Object.notifyAll(), as demonstrated above. The waiting thread consumes zero CPU until it is signaled. Since you need to use manual synchronization with wait/notify anyway, there would be no additional advantage to be gained by using an AtomicBoolean.
Edited to add:
Since apparently there is some confusion about how to use this (or the original version, I guess), here's an example:
class MyClass {
static void main(String[] args) {
FaceBook fb = new FaceBook();
Thread fbThread = new Thread(fb);
fbThread.start();
/* ... do stuff ... */
// Pause the FaceBook thread:
fb.stopThread();
/* ... do more stuff ... */
// Resume the FaceBook thread:
fb.startThread();
// etc.
// When done:
fbThread.interrupt(); // else the program never exits
}
}

I Would recommend you to use a guarded blocks and attach the thread to a timer

How do I unit test asynchronous methods nicely?

I'm currently unit testing my asynchronous methods using thread locking, usually I inject a CountDownLatch into my asynchronous component and let the main thread wait for it to reach 0. However, this approach just looks plain ugly, and it doesn't scale well, consider what happens when I write 100+ tests for a component and they all sequentially have to wait for a worker thread to do some fake asynchronous job.
So is there another approach? Consider the following example for a simple search mechanism:
Searcher.java
public class Searcher {
private SearcherListener listener;
public void search(String input) {
// Dispatch request to queue and notify listener when finished
}
}
SearcherListener.java
public interface SearcherListener {
public void searchFinished(String[] results);
}
How would you unit test the search method without using multiple threads and blocking one to wait for another? I've drawn inspiration from How to use Junit to test asynchronous processes but the top answer provides no concrete solution to how this would work.

Another approach:
Just dont start the thread. thats all.
Asume you have a SearcherService which uses your Searcher class.
Then don't start the async SearcherService, instead just call searcher.search(), which blocks until search is finished.
Searcher s = new Searcher();
s.search(); // blocks and returns when finished
// now somehow check the result

Writing unit test for async never looks nice.
It's necessary that the testMyAsyncMethod() (main thread) blocks until you are ready to check the correct behaviour. This is necessary because the test case terminates at the end of the method. So there is no way around, the question is only how you block.
A straightforward approach that does not influence much the productive code is to
use a while loop: asume AsyncManager is the class under test:
ArrayList resultTarget = new ArrayList();
AsyncManager fixture = new AsyncManager(resultTarget);
fixture.startWork();
// now wait for result, and avoid endless waiting
int numIter = 10;
// correct testcase expects two events in resultTarget
int expected = 2;
while (numIter > 0 && resulTarget.size() < expected) {
Thread.sleep(100);
numIter--;
}
assertEquals(expected, resulTarget.size());
productive code would use apropriate target in the constructor of AsyncManager or uses another constructor. For test purpose we can pass our test target.
You will write this only for inherent async tasks like your own message queue.
for other code, only unitest the core part of the class that performs the calculation task, (a special algorithm, etc) you dont need to let it run in a thread.
However for your search listener the shown principle with loop and wait is appropriate.
public class SearchTest extends UnitTest implements SearchListener {
public void searchFinished() {
this.isSearchFinished = true;
}
public void testSearch1() {
// Todo setup your search listener, and register this class to receive
Searcher searcher = new Searcher();
searcher.setListener(this);
// Todo setup thread
searcherThread.search();
asserTrue(checkSearchResult("myExpectedResult1"));
}
private boolean checkSearchResult(String expected) {
boolean isOk = false;
int numIter = 10;
while (numIter > 0 && !this.isSearchFinished) {
Thread.sleep(100);
numIter--;
}
// todo somehow check that search was correct
isOk = .....
return isOk;
}
}

Create a synchronous version of the class that listens for its own results and uses an internal latch that search() waits on and searchFinished() clears. Like this:
public static class SynchronousSearcher implements SearcherListener {
private CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
private String[] results;
private class WaitingSearcher extends Searcher {
#Override
public void search(String input) {
super.search(input);
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
public String[] search(String input) {
WaitingSearcher searcher = new WaitingSearcher();
searcher.listener = this;
searcher.search(input);
return results;
}
#Override
public void searchFinished(String[] results) {
this.results = results;
latch.countDown();
}
}
Then to use it, simply:
String[] results = new SynchronousSearcher().search("foo");
There are no threads, no wait loops and the method returns in the minimal possible time. It also doesn't matter if the search returns instantly - before the call to await() - because await() will immediately return if the latch is already at zero.

Manually trigger a #Scheduled method

I need advice on the following:
I have a #Scheduled service method which has a fixedDelay of a couple of seconds in which it does scanning of a work queue and processing of apropriate work if it finds any. In the same service I have a method which puts work in the work queue and I would like this method to imediately trigger scanning of the queue after it's done (since I'm sure that there will now be some work to do for the scanner) in order to avoid the delay befor the scheduled kicks in (since this can be seconds, and time is somewhat critical).
An "trigger now" feature of the Task Execution and Scheaduling subsystem would be ideal, one that would also reset the fixedDelay after execution was initiated maually (since I dont want my manual execution to collide with the scheduled one). Note: work in the queue can come from external source, thus the requirement to do periodic scanning.
Any advice is welcome
Edit:
The queue is stored in a document-based db so local queue-based solutions are not appropriate.
A solution I am not quite happy with (don't really like the usage of raw threads) would go something like this:
#Service
public class MyProcessingService implements ProcessingService {
Thread worker;
#PostCreate
public void init() {
worker = new Thread() {
boolean ready = false;
private boolean sleep() {
synchronized(this) {
if (ready) {
ready = false;
} else {
try {
wait(2000);
} catch(InterruptedException) {
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
public void tickle() {
synchronized(this) {
ready = true;
notify();
}
}
public void run() {
while(!interrupted()) {
if(!sleep()) continue;
scan();
}
}
}
worker.start();
}
#PreDestroy
public void uninit() {
worker.interrup();
}
public void addWork(Work work) {
db.store(work);
worker.tickle();
}
public void scan() {
List<Work> work = db.getMyWork();
for (Work w : work) {
process();
}
}
public void process(Work work) {
// work processing here
}
}

Since the #Scheduled method wouldn't have any work to do if there are no items in the work-queue, that is, if no one put any work in the queue between the execution cycles. On the same note, if some work-item was inserted into the work-queue (by an external source probably) immediately after the scheduled-execution was complete, the work won't be attended to until the next execution.
In this scenario, what you need is a consumer-producer queue. A queue in which one or more producers put in work-items and a consumer takes items off the queue and processes them. What you want here is a BlockingQueue. They can be used for solving the consumer-producer problem in a thread-safe manner.
You can have one Runnable that performs the tasks performed by your current #Scheduled method.
public class SomeClass {
private final BlockingQueue<Work> workQueue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Work>();
public BlockingQueue<Work> getWorkQueue() {
return workQueue;
}
private final class WorkExecutor implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
// The call to take() retrieves and removes the head of this
// queue,
// waiting if necessary until an element becomes available.
Work work = workQueue.take();
// do processing
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
continue;
}
}
}
}
// The work-producer may be anything, even a #Scheduled method
#Scheduled
public void createWork() {
Work work = new Work();
workQueue.offer(work);
}
}
And some other Runnable or another class might put in items as following:
public class WorkCreator {
#Autowired
private SomeClass workerClass;
#Override
public void run() {
// produce work
Work work = new Work();
workerClass.getWorkQueue().offer(work);
}
}
I guess that's the right way to solve the problem you have at hand. There are several variations/configurations that you can have, just look at the java.util.concurrent package.
Update after question edited
Even if the external source is a db, it is still a producer-consumer problem. You can probably call the scan() method whenever you store data in the db, and the scan() method can put the data retrieved from the db into the BlockingQueue.
To address the actual thing about resetting the fixedDelay
That is not actually possible, wither with Java, or with Spring, unless you handle the scheduling part yourself. There is no trigger-now functionality as well. If you have access to the Runnable that's doing the task, you can probably call the run() method yourself. But that would be the same as calling the processing method yourself from anywhere and you don't really need the Runnable.
Another possible workaround
private Lock queueLock = new ReentrantLock();
#Scheduled
public void findNewWorkAndProcess() {
if(!queueLock.tryLock()) {
return;
}
try {
doWork();
} finally {
queueLock.unlock();
}
}
void doWork() {
List<Work> work = getWorkFromDb();
// process work
}
// To be called when new data is inserted into the db.
public void newDataInserted() {
queueLock.lock();
try {
doWork();
} finally {
queueLock.unlock();
}
}
the newDataInserted() is called when you insert any new data. If the scheduled execution is in progress, it will wait until it is finished and then do the work. The call to lock() here is blocking since we know that there is some work in the database and the scheduled-call might have been called before the work was inserted. The call to acquire lock in findNewWorkAndProcess() in non-blocking as, if the lock has been acquired by the newDataInserted method, it would mean that the scheduled method shouldn't be executed.
Well, you can fine tune as you like.

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.