I want to use two threads to print Floyd triangle(say one thread prints the number and the other prints the number in the line) as below.
and so forth until the max number which is 15 in this case.
I tried following but it keeps on printing numbers one on each line
public class MyThread extends Thread{
static volatile int lineNumber = 1;
public static void main(String... args) {
PrintFloyd print = new PrintFloyd();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new TaskHandler(print, 10), "T1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new TaskHandler(print, 10), "T2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
class TaskHandler implements Runnable {
static volatile int i = 1;
static volatile int lineCount = 1;
static volatile int lineNumber = 1;
private int max;
private PrintFloyd print;
TaskHandler(PrintFloyd print2, int max) {
this.print = print2;
this.max = max;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(">>>>" + Thread.currentThread().getName());
while(i < max){
if (Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("T1")){
print.printNumber(i);
} else {
print.breakLine();
}
}
}
}
class PrintFloyd {
boolean isBreakPoint = false;
public void printNumber(int i) {
synchronized(this){
while (isBreakPoint == false) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
System.out.print(i++ + " ");
isBreakPoint = false;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
public void breakLine(){
synchronized(this){
while (isBreakPoint == true) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
System.out.println();
isBreakPoint = true;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
The following code would help:
public class PrintPatternWith2Threads {
final static int MAX = 15;
final static String itemWriterName = "itemWriter";
final static String newLineWriterName = "newLineWriter";
public static void main(String[] args) {
Printer print = new Printer(MAX);
Thread itemWriter = new Thread(new ItemWriter(print), itemWriterName);
itemWriter.start();
Thread newLineWriter = new Thread(new NewLineWriter(print), newLineWriterName);
newLineWriter.start();
}
}
class ItemWriter implements Runnable {
private Printer print;
ItemWriter(Printer print) {
this.print = print;
}
public void run() {
while (print.current <= print.MAX) {
print.printNumber();
}
}
}
class NewLineWriter implements Runnable {
private Printer print;
NewLineWriter(Printer print) {
this.print = print;
}
public void run() {
while (print.current <= print.MAX) {
print.printNewLine();
}
}
}
class Printer {
public final int MAX;
public int current = 1;
public int itemsInALine = 1;
Printer(int max) {
this.MAX = max;
}
public void printNumber() {
synchronized(this) {
for(int i = current; i < current + itemsInALine && i <= MAX; i++) {
System.out.print(i + " ");
}
this.current = current + itemsInALine;
itemsInALine++;
notifyAll();
try {
if(this.current < MAX) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void printNewLine() {
synchronized(this) {
System.out.println();
notifyAll();
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
I am trying out the Producer-Consumer problem using Semaphore. The program looks fine to me except for one place.
public class ProducerConsumerWithSemaphores
{
private final ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>(5);
private final Semaphore semaphoreProducer = new Semaphore(1);
private final Semaphore semaphoreConsumer = new Semaphore(0);
private void produce() throws InterruptedException
{
for(int i = 0;i< 5;i++)
{
semaphoreProducer.acquire();
list.add(i);
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
semaphoreConsumer.release();
}
}
private void consumer() throws InterruptedException
{
while (!list.isEmpty()) /// This line is where I have the doubt
{
semaphoreConsumer.acquire();
System.out.println("Consumer: " + list.remove(list.size()-1));
semaphoreProducer.release();
Thread.sleep(100);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
final ProducerConsumerWithSemaphores obj = new ProducerConsumerWithSemaphores();
new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
try
{
obj.produce();
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
try
{
obj.consumer();
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
}
}
Is it okay to check the list if it is not empty before acquiring the semaphore? Will this cause any problem in multithreaded environment?
private void consumer() throws InterruptedException
{
while (!list.isEmpty()) /// This line is where I have the doubt
The problem is, if consumer runs faster than producer, your consumer quit immediately, then you have no consumer!!
The correct example looks like,
Producer–consumer problem#Using semaphores. I believe your intention is not to use true as endless loop because you want Producer/Consumer to quit when job is done. If that's your intention, you can 1. set a totalCount to end the loop. 2. Or a boolean flag which will be set by producer after putItemIntoBuffer when producer put the last one. The flag must be protected as well as the buffer.(update: this method doesn't work if there's multiple producers/consumers) 3. Simulate EOF ( idea taken from producer - consume; how does the consumer stop?)
Will this cause any problem in multithreaded environment?
Your critical section (your list) is not protected . Usually we use 3 semaphores. The 3rd one is used as a mutex to protect the buffer.
To stop producers/consumers,
Example code with method 1:
public class Test3 {
private Semaphore mutex = new Semaphore(1);
private Semaphore fillCount = new Semaphore(0);
private Semaphore emptyCount = new Semaphore(3);
private final List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>();
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final int totalTasks;
Producer(int totalTasks) {
this.totalTasks = totalTasks;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < totalTasks; i++) {
emptyCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
list.add(i);
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
mutex.release();
fillCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final int totalTasks;
Consumer(int totalTasks) {
this.totalTasks = totalTasks;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < totalTasks; i++) {
fillCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
int item = list.remove(list.size() - 1);
System.out.println("Consumed: " + item);
mutex.release();
emptyCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void runTest() {
int numProducer = 3;
int tasksPerProducer = 10;
int numConsumer = 6;
int tasksPerConsumer = 5;
for (int i = 0; i < numProducer; i++) {
new Thread(new Producer(tasksPerProducer)).start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < numConsumer; i++) {
new Thread(new Consumer(tasksPerConsumer)).start();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Test3 t = new Test3();
t.runTest();
}
}
Example code with method 3:
public class Test4 {
private Semaphore mutex = new Semaphore(1);
private Semaphore fillCount = new Semaphore(0);
private Semaphore emptyCount = new Semaphore(3);
private Integer EOF = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
private final Queue<Integer> list = new LinkedList<>(); // need to put/get data in FIFO
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final int totalTasks;
Producer(int totalTasks) {
this.totalTasks = totalTasks;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < totalTasks + 1; i++) {
emptyCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
if (i == totalTasks) {
list.offer(EOF);
} else {
// add a valid value
list.offer(i);
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
}
mutex.release();
fillCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
boolean finished = false;
while (!finished) {
fillCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
int item = list.poll();
if (EOF.equals(item)) {
// do not consume this item because it means EOF
finished = true;
} else {
// it's a valid value, consume it.
System.out.println("Consumed: " + item);
}
mutex.release();
emptyCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void runTest() {
int numProducer = 3;
int tasksPerProducer = 10;
for (int i = 0; i < numProducer; i++) {
new Thread(new Producer(tasksPerProducer)).start();
}
int numConsumer = numProducer; // producers will put N EOFs to kill N consumers.
for (int i = 0; i < numConsumer; i++) {
new Thread(new Consumer()).start();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Test4 t = new Test4();
t.runTest();
}
}
Instead of using two semaphores why dont you use a single semaphore to such that the synchronization is made between threads link
Additional you can use ArrayBlockingQueue which are thread safe to properly demonstrate the Producer Consumer Problem.
I have 3 threads
1st printing A
2nd printing B
3rd printing C
I want to print in sequence A B C A B C A B C and so on.....
So I wrote the program below, but I am not able to achieve the same.
I am aware of the problem that when status=1 at that time say for example B1 and C1 thread are waiting and when I do notifyAll() both waiting thread wake up and depending on CPU allocation it might print B or C.
in this case I want only B to be printed after A.
what modification I need to do.
public class NotifyAllExample {
int status=1;
public static void main(String[] args) {
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample = new NotifyAllExample();
A1 a=new A1(notifyAllExample);
B1 b=new B1(notifyAllExample);
C1 c=new C1(notifyAllExample);
a.start();
b.start();
c.start();
}
}
class A1 extends Thread{
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample;
A1(NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample){
this.notifyAllExample = notifyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try{
synchronized (notifyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if(notifyAllExample.status!=1){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("A ");
notifyAllExample.status = 2;
notifyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
}
}catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 1 :"+e.getMessage());
}
}
}
class B1 extends Thread{
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample;
B1(NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample){
this.notifyAllExample = notifyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try{
synchronized (notifyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if(notifyAllExample.status!=2){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("B ");
notifyAllExample.status = 3;
notifyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
}
}catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 2 :"+e.getMessage());
}
}
}
class C1 extends Thread{
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample;
C1(NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample){
this.notifyAllExample = notifyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try{
synchronized (notifyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if(notifyAllExample.status!=3){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("C ");
notifyAllExample.status = 1;
notifyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
}
}catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 3 :"+e.getMessage());
}
}
}
Convert those IF statements to WHILE statements to get the desired behavior:
if (notifyAllExample.status != 2){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
to
while (notifyAllExample.status != 2){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
This will ensure that if a thread is notified, it won't go out of the while loop until the status value is what it expects.
Also, mark status as volatile so that the threads won't have a local copy.
public class RunThreadsInOrder implements Runnable {
static int numThread = 1;
static int threadAllowedToRun = 1;
int myThreadID;
private static Object myLock = new Object();
public RunThreadsInOrder() {
this.myThreadID = numThread++;
System.out.println("Thread ID:" + myThreadID);
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (myLock) {
while (myThreadID != threadAllowedToRun) {
try {
myLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("myThreadID is running: " + myThreadID);
myLock.notifyAll();
threadAllowedToRun++;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
Thread t1 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t3 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t4 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t5 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t6 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t7 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
t7.start();
t6.start();
t5.start();
t4.start();
t3.start();
t2.start();
t1.start();
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException{
Thread t1 = new Thread(new A(), "1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new A(), "2");
Thread t3 = new Thread(new A(), "3");
t1.start();
try{
t1.join();
}catch (Exception e){
}
t2.start();
try{
t2.join();
}catch (Exception e){
}
t3.start();
try{
t3.join();
}catch (Exception e){
}
}
}
class A implements Runnable{
public void run(){
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
or you can use Executor Framework
public class Sequence {
int valve = 1;
public static void main(String[] args){
Sequence s = new Sequence();
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
List<Runnable> rList = new ArrayList<>();
rList.add(new A(s));
rList.add(new B(s));
rList.add(new C(s));
for(int i = 0; i < rList.size(); i++){
es.submit(rList.get(i));
}
es.shutdown();
}
}
class A implements Runnable{
Sequence s;
A(Sequence s){
this.s = s;
}
public void run(){
synchronized (s) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
while (s.valve != 1) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("A");
s.valve = 2;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class B implements Runnable{
Sequence s;
B(Sequence s){
this.s = s;
}
public void run() {
synchronized (s) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
while (s.valve != 2) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("B");
s.valve = 3;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class C implements Runnable{
Sequence s;
C(Sequence s){
this.s = s;
}
public void run() {
synchronized (s) {
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
while (s.valve != 3) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("C");
s.valve = 1;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
In the first case the join for each thread causes the threads to wait for one another. In the second case a list stores the threads and executor executes them one after another creating 3 threads
Another way to do this is where only one runnable class is present and communication between thread is done via static variable in the main class and a variable in the runnable class
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.Executor;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Seq {
int i = 1;
public static void main(String[] args){
Seq s = new Seq();
Common c1 = new Common(s, 1);
Common c2 = new Common(s, 2);
Common c3 = new Common(s, 3);
List<Runnable> l = new ArrayList<>();
l.add(c1);
l.add(c2);
l.add(c3);
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++){
es.submit(l.get(i));
}
es.shutdown();
}
}
class Common implements Runnable{
Seq s;
int o;
Common(Seq s, int o){
this.s = s;
this.o = o;
}
public void run(){
synchronized (s) {
for (int z = 0; z < 100; z++) {
if(s.i > 3)
s.i = 1;
while (s.i != o) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(o);
s.i++;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
I was asked to write a similar program in an interview with the added condition that it should be extensible in a way that we can provide our own count of threads and they should print characters with the first thread printing 'A' and then the subsequent threads printing B, C, D and so on. Here's how I did it.
public class AlternateCharPrinter {
public static char ch = 65;
private static void createAndStartThreads(int count) {
Object lock = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
new Thread(new AlternateCharRunner((char) (65 + i), lock)).start();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
createAndStartThreads(4);
}
}
class AlternateCharRunner implements Runnable {
private char ch;
private Object lock;
private static int runnerCount;
public AlternateCharRunner(char ch, Object lock) {
this.ch = ch;
this.lock = lock;
runnerCount++;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
while (ch != AlternateCharPrinter.ch) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(AlternateCharPrinter.ch++);
if (AlternateCharPrinter.ch == (65 + runnerCount)) {
AlternateCharPrinter.ch = 65;
}
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
You need to replace
if (notifyAllExample.status!=1)
with
while (notifyAllExample.status!=1)
and same thing in the other 2 classes. If not, then as soon as the wait exits the thread continues without knowing if it is its turn.
Replace:
if(notifyAllExample.status!=1){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
with:
while(notifyAllExample.status!=1){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
in all classes accordingly.
The simplest solution to solve this can be following way:
public class PrintInOrder implements Runnable {
private int valueToPrint;
private int id;
private static int turn = 1;
private static int RESET_TURN_THRESHOLD = 3;
public PrintInOrder() {
this.valueToPrint = -1;
}
public PrintInOrder(int id, int val) {
this.id = id;
this.valueToPrint = val;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
if (turn == this.id) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "::::" + valueToPrint);
turn++;
}
if (turn > RESET_TURN_THRESHOLD) {
turn = 1;
}
}
}
public static void main(String []args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new PrintInOrder(1, 1));
t1.setName("THREAD-1");
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new PrintInOrder(2, 2));
t2.setName("THREAD-2");
t2.start();
Thread t3 = new Thread(new PrintInOrder(3, 3));
t3.setName("THREAD-3");
t3.start();
}
}
/*
OUTPUT::::
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
...
*/
Here is my solution -
I have created three threads each thread knows what it needs to print and what comes after it.
I have also created a Class NLock which holds the next word which needs to be printed.
Whenever a thread is able to acquire NLock lock then it checks
if it's his turn if yes then it prints the word and set the next value to be printed in NLock or else it waits till it's his turn
public class SynchronizeThreeThreads {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
NLock lock=new NLock("A");
Thread a =new Thread(new PrintInOrder("A","B",lock));
Thread b =new Thread(new PrintInOrder("B","C",lock));
Thread c =new Thread(new PrintInOrder("C","A",lock));
a.start();
b.start();
c.start();
c.join(); // Once all is done main thread will exit
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
class NLock{
private String value;
public NLock(String value) {
this.value=value;
}
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
public void setValue(String next) {
this.value=next;
}
}
class PrintInOrder implements Runnable{
private String word;
private String next;
private NLock lock;
public PrintInOrder(String word, String next,NLock lock){
this.word=word;
this.next=next;
this.lock=lock;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int i=0;
while(i<3) {
synchronized (lock) {
try {
//Check if it's my turn
if(lock.getValue().equals(word)) {
System.out.println(this.word);
//Set what next needs to be printed
//So that when that thread wakes up it knows that it's his turn
lock.setValue(next);
i++;
lock.notifyAll();
Thread.sleep(100);
}
else //Nope not my turn wait
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
Below is the output
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Done
This is my attempt to solve the same. Any suggestions are welcome. This is the complete running code.
import lombok.SneakyThrows;
import lombok.extern.slf4j.Slf4j;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
#Slf4j
public class SeqExecution {
static class SeqThread extends Thread {
private static final Object lock = new Object();
private static final AtomicInteger AUTO_COUNTER = new AtomicInteger();
private static final TrackExecution trackExecution = new TrackExecution();
private final int seqNo;
SeqThread(Runnable runnable) {
super(runnable);
this.seqNo = AUTO_COUNTER.getAndIncrement();
}
#SneakyThrows
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
while (trackExecution.CUR_EXECUTION.get() != this.seqNo) {
try {
lock.wait(100);
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
//log.info("Thread: {} is running", this.seqNo);
super.run();
sleep(1000);
trackExecution.increment();
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
static class TrackExecution {
private final AtomicInteger CUR_EXECUTION = new AtomicInteger();
int get() {
return CUR_EXECUTION.get();
}
synchronized void increment() {
var val = CUR_EXECUTION.incrementAndGet();
if (val >= SeqThread.AUTO_COUNTER.get()) {
CUR_EXECUTION.set(0);
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final var seqThreads = List.of(new SeqThread(() -> System.out.print("A ")),
new SeqThread(() -> System.out.print("B ")),
new SeqThread(() -> System.out.print("C ")));
seqThreads.forEach(Thread::start);
seqThreads.forEach(t -> {
try {
t.join();
} catch (Exception e) {
log.warn(e.getMessage(), e);
}
});
}
}
I think it's simpler to achieve this using join.
Example:
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Thread t1 = new Thread("t1") {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("i am thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
};
final Thread t2 = new Thread(t1, "t2") {
#Override
public void run() {
t1.start();
try {
t1.join();
} catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("i am thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
};
Thread t3 = new Thread(t2, "t3") {
#Override
public void run() {
t2.start();
try {
t2.join();
} catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("i am thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
};
t3.start();
}
Here is my solution please try and let me know
package thread;
class SyncPrinter {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SyncPrinterAction printAction1 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{1,5,9,13}, true);
SyncPrinterAction printAction2 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{2,6,10,14}, true);
SyncPrinterAction printAction3 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{3,7,11,15}, true);
SyncPrinterAction printAction4 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{4,8,12,16}, false);
printAction1.setDependentAction(printAction4);
printAction2.setDependentAction(printAction1);
printAction3.setDependentAction(printAction2);
printAction4.setDependentAction(printAction3);
new Thread(printAction1, "T1").start();;
new Thread(printAction2, "T2").start();
new Thread(printAction3, "T3").start();
new Thread(printAction4, "T4").start();
}
}
class SyncPrinterAction implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean dependent;
private SyncPrinterAction dependentAction;
int[] data;
public void setDependentAction(SyncPrinterAction dependentAction){
this.dependentAction = dependentAction;
}
public SyncPrinterAction( int[] data, boolean dependent) {
this.data = data;
this.dependent = dependent;
}
public SyncPrinterAction( int[] data, SyncPrinterAction dependentAction, boolean dependent) {
this.dependentAction = dependentAction;
this.data = data;
this.dependent = dependent;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
for (int value : data) {
try {
while(dependentAction.isDependent())
//System.out.println("\t\t"+Thread.currentThread().getName() + " :: Waithing for dependent action to complete");
wait(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
dependentAction.setDependent(true);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " :: " +value);
dependent = false;
}
}
}
private void setDependent(boolean dependent) {
this.dependent = dependent;
}
private boolean isDependent() {
return dependent;
}
}
As with basically every exchanger task, I have a producer filling up an empty buffer2, a consumer clearing a full buffer1 and when each thread is done, they should exchange their respective buffers.
I am really unsure about where and how to apply the exchange. I defined readyconsumer and readyproducer as booleans, so that a third thread can check whether it's time to exchange the buffers once both are true. This should solve the problem I had doing it with two threads, where the program was stuck with both threads at wait() (which it unfortunately still is).
This is what the code looks like at the moment. Can anyone help me in which class I have to exchange and at what point in the code? Thank you very much in advance!
class Buffer {
static boolean readyconsumer, readyproducer = false;
volatile int count; // number of put actions
static int max = 10;
Buffer() {
count = 0;
}
public synchronized void put() {
if (count == max) {
readyproducer = true;
System.out.println(" wait ");
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
count++;
System.out.println("put " + count);
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized void get() {
if (count == 0) {
readyconsumer = true;
System.out.println(" wait");
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
count--;
System.out.println("get " + count);
notifyAll();
}
}
class CheckandSwitch extends ProdCon {
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (Buffer.readyconsumer && Buffer.readyproducer) {
try {
ProdCon.buffer2 = exchanger.exchange(ProdCon.buffer1);
ProdCon.buffer1 = exchanger.exchange(ProdCon.buffer2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
Buffer.readyconsumer = false;
Buffer.readyproducer = false;
buffer1.count = 0;
buffer2.count = 10;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer extends ProdCon {
static Buffer buffer;
Consumer(Buffer b) {
super();
buffer = b;
b.count = 10;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
consume();
buffer.get();
}
}
private void consume() {
System.out.println("consume");
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
class Producer extends ProdCon {
static Buffer buffer;
Producer(Buffer b) {
super();
buffer = b;
b.count = 0;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
produce();
buffer.put();
}
}
private void produce() {
System.out.println("produce ");
try {
Thread.sleep(50);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class ProdCon extends Thread {
static Exchanger<Buffer> exchanger = new Exchanger<Buffer>();
static Buffer buffer1, buffer2 = null;
public static void main(String[] args) {
buffer1 = new Buffer();
buffer2 = new Buffer();
new Consumer(buffer1).start();
new Producer(buffer2).start();
new CheckandSwitch().start();
}
}
You could use an Exchanger.
Here's the code from the javadoc tweaked into a working example.
class DataBuffer<T> {
T data = null;
public boolean isFull() {
return data != null;
}
public boolean isEmpty() {
return data == null;
}
public T get() {
T d = data;
data = null;
return d;
}
public void put(T data) {
this.data = data;
}
}
class FillAndEmpty {
Exchanger<DataBuffer<Integer>> exchanger = new Exchanger<>();
DataBuffer<Integer> initialEmptyBuffer = new DataBuffer<>();
DataBuffer<Integer> initialFullBuffer = new DataBuffer<>();
int countDown = 10;
class FillingLoop implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
DataBuffer currentBuffer = initialEmptyBuffer;
try {
while (currentBuffer != null && countDown > 0) {
addToBuffer(currentBuffer);
if (currentBuffer.isFull()) {
currentBuffer = exchanger.exchange(currentBuffer);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
private void addToBuffer(DataBuffer<Integer> currentBuffer) {
currentBuffer.put(countDown--);
}
}
class EmptyingLoop implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
DataBuffer<Integer> currentBuffer = initialFullBuffer;
try {
while (currentBuffer != null) {
takeFromBuffer(currentBuffer);
if (currentBuffer.isEmpty()) {
currentBuffer = exchanger.exchange(currentBuffer);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
private void takeFromBuffer(DataBuffer<Integer> currentBuffer) {
System.out.println(currentBuffer.get());
}
}
void start() {
new Thread(new FillingLoop()).start();
new Thread(new EmptyingLoop()).start();
}
}
public void test() {
System.out.println("Hello");
new FillAndEmpty().start();
}
When I compile and run the StartThreads Class I get a list of integer 1 to 1000000 with false and at the end it prints true;
Now what I'm trying to find out is why does class threadone print nothing when it should print once the instance variable in class MyVariables = true?
public class MyVariables {
public boolean startApp = false;
}
public class ThreadOne implements Runnable {
Thread t;
MyVariables x;
public ThreadOne(MyVariables x) {
t = new Thread(this, "Thread One");
this.x = x;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(this.x.startApp != false) {
System.out.println("Starting");
}
}
public void start() {
t.start();
}
}
public class ThreadTwo implements Runnable {
Thread t;
MyVariables x;
public ThreadTwo(MyVariables x) {
t = new Thread(this, "Thread One");
this.x = x;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this.x) {
for(int i = 0; i <= 1000001; i++) {
if(i == 1000001) {
this.x.startApp = true;
System.out.println(this.x.startApp);
}
else {
System.out.println(this.x.startApp);
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}
public void start() {
t.start();
}
}
public class StartThreads {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyVariables a = new MyVariables();
ThreadOne x = new ThreadOne(a);
ThreadTwo y = new ThreadTwo(a);
x.start();
y.start();
}
}
Why should ThreadOne behave as you're stating? It's while loop is never run but rather is skipped over since the condition is not true. I think that you're expecting it to wait for something to change to true, but it does nothing of the sort, and instead once it sees that a condition is false, finishes execution.
Note that this is ugly code:
while(this.x.startApp != false) {
Why state while something is not false? That's the same as being true.
Better
while (x.startApp) {
Now as for your actual problem, perhaps you should instead make your while loop:
while (!x.startApp) {
Thread.sleep(1); // surrounded with try/catch
}
System.out.println("Starting");
e.g.,
class ThreadOne implements Runnable {
Thread t;
volatile MyVariables x;
public ThreadOne(MyVariables x) {
t = new Thread(this, "Thread One");
this.x = x;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (!x.startApp) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
System.out.println("Starting");
}
public void start() {
t.start();
}
}
class ThreadTwo implements Runnable {
private static final int MAX_I = 10001;
Thread t;
volatile MyVariables x;
public ThreadTwo(MyVariables x) {
t = new Thread(this, "Thread One");
this.x = x;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this.x) {
for (int i = 0; i <= MAX_I; i++) {
if (i == MAX_I) {
this.x.startApp = true;
System.out.println(this.x.startApp);
} else {
System.out.println(this.x.startApp);
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}
public void start() {
t.start();
}
}
public class StartThreads {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyVariables a = new MyVariables();
ThreadOne x = new ThreadOne(a);
ThreadTwo y = new ThreadTwo(a);
x.start();
y.start();
}
}
class MyVariables {
public volatile boolean startApp = false;
}
Also, I think that your boolean field should at the least be volatile.
Another way using a PropertyChangeListener and the observer pattern:
import java.beans.PropertyChangeEvent;
import java.beans.PropertyChangeListener;
import java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport;
public class StartThreads2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final MyVariables2 myVars2 = new MyVariables2();
final RunOne runOne = new RunOne();
final RunTwo runTwo = new RunTwo(myVars2);
myVars2.addPropertyChangeListener(new PropertyChangeListener() {
#Override
public void propertyChange(PropertyChangeEvent pcEvt) {
if (MyVariables2.START_APP.equals(pcEvt.getPropertyName())) {
if (pcEvt.getNewValue().equals(Boolean.TRUE)) {
new Thread(runOne).start();
}
}
}
});
new Thread(runTwo).start();
}
}
class MyVariables2 {
public static final String START_APP = "start app";
private volatile boolean startApp = false;
private PropertyChangeSupport pcSupport = new PropertyChangeSupport(this);
public boolean isStartApp() {
return startApp;
}
public void setStartApp(boolean startApp) {
boolean oldValue = this.startApp;
boolean newValue = startApp;
this.startApp = startApp;
pcSupport.firePropertyChange(START_APP, oldValue, newValue);
}
public void addPropertyChangeListener(PropertyChangeListener listener) {
pcSupport.addPropertyChangeListener(listener);
}
public void removePropertyChangeListener(PropertyChangeListener listener) {
pcSupport.removePropertyChangeListener(listener);
}
}
class RunOne implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Starting RunOne");
}
}
class RunTwo implements Runnable {
private static final int MAX_I = 10001;
private MyVariables2 myVars2;
public RunTwo(MyVariables2 myVars2) {
this.myVars2 = myVars2;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i <= MAX_I; i++) {
System.out.println("startApp: " + myVars2.isStartApp());
System.out.printf("i: %05d%n", i);
}
myVars2.setStartApp(true);
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("startApp: " + myVars2.isStartApp());
}
}