I have two threads, threadOne waits for user input, threadTwo interrupts it with an interrupt() method before user input is received .
I would like to execute a block of code upon successful interruption of threadOne. I tried doing that by catching a ClosedByInterruptException within threadOne's run() method, but the compiler gives the following error:
exception ClosedByInterruptException has already been caught.
Here's the code:
class InputInterruption {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Thread t2 = new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
System.out.print("make a selection: ");
String userInput = (new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in))).readLine();
System.out.println(String.format("user input: %s", userInput));
} catch (IOException e) {
System.out.println("Oops..somethign went wrong.");
System.exit(1);
} catch(ClosedByInterruptException e) {
System.out.println("Successfully interrupted");
}
}
};
t2.start();
Thread t1 = new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
sleep(1000);
System.out.println("interrupting InputStreamReader");
t2.interrupt();
System.exit(0);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Successfully interrupted");
}
}
};
t1.start();
}
}
ClosedByInterruptionException extends IOException. Try switching the order of your catch statements.
ClosedByInterruptException is a subclass of IOException so your first catch block intercepts all IOException instances including ClosedByInterruptException.
Change the order of catch blocks and you are good.
To wait for a thread to complete, you could use Thread.join(). Change your t1 code to the following:
....
t2.interrupt();
t2.join();
....
Disclaimer: I haven't tried this code myself.
ClosedByInterruptException is actually sub class of IOException. So even if the try block throws ClosedByInterruptException it will be caught by the first catch block with statement:
catch (IOException e). Change the order and you should be good to go.
I tried doing that by catching a ClosedByInterruptException within threadOne's run() method...
Other's have solved the exception compilation error but I do not see any methods that actually throw ClosedByInterruptException so I'm surprised your code compiles. Your code does not compile for me in Eclipse for that reason. Maybe your IDE is not making the unthrown exception an error -- I'd recommend turning on that error/warning. ClosedByInterruptException is only thrown by certain NIO channels that implement InterruptibleChannel.
If you are reading from a normal stream, the only way to stop the thread from reading is to close the underlying stream. In this case you could try to close System.in but that may not actually stop the thread from reading unfortunately. On OS X, closing System.in causes the readLine() method to return null in the reader thread. You then can continue and execute some sort of code block as necessary.
sleep(1000);
System.out.println("closing InputStreamReader");
System.in.close();
Then you can do:
String userInput =
new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)).readLine();
if (userInput == null) {
// stream was closed, do something special
...
Btw, in the interrupting code you have:
try {
sleep(1000);
t2.interrupt();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Successfully interrupted");
}
The output message there is misleading. If sleep(...) throws a InterruptedException then it was the thread that was sleeping that was interrupted. It has nothing to do with the t2.interrupt() call. Just FYI.
Related
We all know that when catching an interruptedexception we are supposed to
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
However, from my tests, that flag is already set.
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
});
t.start();
System.out.println(t.isInterrupted());
t.interrupt();
System.out.println(t.isInterrupted());
Prints:
false
true
So what is the point of that commented out line?
If the line is commented out and you try to check in the thread itself if it is interrupted, you will get false as response.
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted());//false
});
If you execute the line you get true.
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted());//true
});
Edit:
The use of interrupt() is to inform the thread that it should be terminated. It replaces the stop() method which immediately terminates a thread at the currently executed line. Since stopping leaves files or streams open, this way is deprecated. The interrupt should be used to safely close all open streams and then safely terminate the thread. If the thread does not have the ability to create ghosts (leave streams/files open), the handling can be omitted. However, it should always be remembered that the interrupt() method does not terminate the thread, instead it continues to execute the code after the exception as if nothing had happened.
I am using a Java based file conversion tool which converts PDF to DOCX, but sometimes while conversion it stuck, if input file size is more then 1 MB and start utilizing 100% CPU and more memory and keep running. I want to stop this continuous thread.
I know stop() function is deprecated.
Calling thread.interrupt(); is not helping, since thread is keep running.
There is no loop in the code ...so cannot check for interrupted flag in loop
How to Stop a running Thread t.
public class ThreadDemo implements Runnable {
Thread t;
PdfToDocConversion objPdfToDocConversion;
ThreadDemo() throws InterruptedException {
t = new Thread(this);
System.out.println("Executing " + t.getName());
// this will call run() fucntion
t.start();
Thread.sleep(2000);
// interrupt the threads
if (!t.interrupted()) {
System.out.println("Interrupted");
t.interrupt();
}
System.out.println(t.isInterrupted()); // true
System.out.println(t.getName());
System.out.println(t.isAlive()); /// still true
// block until other threads finish
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
public void run() {
objPdfToDocConversion = new PdfToDocConversion();
try {
objPdfToDocConversion.convertDocToPdf();//inside this function thread got stuck
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
System.out.print(t.getName() + " interrupted:");
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
try {
new ThreadDemo();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
You can build your own logic in killing the thread by the help of boolean flag.
public class RunningThread implements Thread {
private volatile boolean running = true;
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
// Add your code here
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
if(!running){
break;
}
}
}
}
public void stopThread() {
running = false;
interrupt();
}
}
Here is the usecase:
RunningThread thread = new RunningThread();
thread.start(); // start the thread
thread.stopThread(); // stops the thread
The approach above is originally used by Google developers in on of there framework a.k.a Volley library.
Thread.interrupt() only sets a flag within the Thread object that the Thread should be interrupted. It does not cause the target Thread to throw an InterruptedException, instead code that can be interrupted must continually check that flag to see if someone has requested it be interrupted. That code then must handle it, usually by throwing an InterruptedException.
Some of the answers say about stopping the loop with volatile boolean isRunning but I do not see any loop in your example. Interrupting the thread does not actually interrupt it "right now". It just says "thread will be interrupted as soon as there will be such an opportunity". In your case I would suggest to close your PDF file and flag it with some boolean - then you can catch the IOException and if the flag is set - it means that you caused this situation and you can finish the thread.
I tried to use multiple threads, sadly no luck:
public synchronized boolean pingServer(final String ip, final short port) {
final boolean[] returnbol = new boolean[1];
Thread tt = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Socket s = new Socket(ip, port);
s.close();
returnbol[0] = true;
} catch (IOException e) {
returnbol[0] = false;
}
}
});
tt.start();
try {
tt.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
tt.stop();
}
tt.stop();
return returnbol[0];
}
The main thread still Freezes for some reason.
Is there a "lagless" way to ping a server?
What exactly did you want to got in
try {
tt.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
tt.stop();
}
block?
Here you joined to parallel thread and waits till this thread will ends (got ping result).
You have next options:
Wait till ping ends
Don't wait... and don't got result
Use some concurrency classes like Future<> to got result (but you will block thread at moment you ask result if it not retrieved yet)
Or you can use some 'callback' function/interface to threw result from inner 'ping' thread.
You will need to remove the following lines from your code.
The tt.join() will force the main thread to wait for tt to finish.
try {
tt.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
tt.stop();
}
tt.stop();
Use a Future instead to get the result for later use
I wrote a thread class that checks the socket connection to the server by sending a small string every one second.
begin() method executes the thread.
After connection is lost, the thread tries to connect again.
My question is if it's ok to re-run by begin() the thread inside the run() method like I did (see below).
public void begin() {
Check = new Thread(this);
Check.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (Check==thisThread) {
try {
oos.writeObject("a");
// oos.flush();
synchronized (this) {
while (pleaseWait) {
try {
System.out.println("waiting");
wait();
System.out.println("not waiting");
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.err.println("Thread is interrupted: "+e.getMessage());
}
}
}
sleep(1000);
} catch (Exception ex) {
v = new Visual("The connection is lost. The system will try to reconnect now.");
this.end();
try {
Server=ClientLogin.checkingServers(); //returns the reachable server string address
socket = new Socket(Server, ServerPort);
System.out.println("Connected: " + socket);
oos = new ObjectOutputStream(socket.getOutputStream());
begin();
v = new Visual("The system is reconnected.");
}
catch(UnknownHostException uhe){
System.out.println("Host unknown: " + uhe.getMessage());
v = new Visual("The system has failed to reconnected.");
}
catch (IOException ioe) {
System.out.println("The system cannot connect to servers: " + ioe.getMessage());
v = new Visual("The system has failed to reconnected.");
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("The system has failed to reconnect: " + e.getMessage());
v = new Visual("The system has failed to reconnected.");
}
}
}
}
public void end() {
Check = null;
}
I don't know any reason why that wouldn't work, but it looks kinda messy. You may have to declare Check as volatile to ensure that the loop always reads the current value, for those times when the new thread overwrites it.
IMHO a better approach would be a separate "supervisor" thread which is responsible for starting one of these threads, and then uses Thread.join() to wait for it to die, at which point it can start it up again.
In this way your main thread's logic can concentrate on exactly what it's supposed to do, without needing to have any "self awareness".
First, the code is not thread safe. The "Check" field is written by one thread but read by another, but it is not synchronised. There is no guarantee that the new started thread is going to see the updated value of "Check", i.e. the new thread will get the old thread's reference when checking "Check==thisThread" and do the wrong thing,
This particular problem can be fixed by making "Check" field volatile. It makes sure when it is updated, every thread will see the new value.
It is not "wrong" to call "begin()" in the run() method. However I wouldn't recommend it because you created a recursive call here effectively. There is a good chance you will get it wrong and fall into infinite loop. Try the simple design below. It uses a while loop instead of recursion.
package com.thinkinginobjects;
public class HeathChecker {
public void run() {
while (true) {
boolean success = checkHeath();
if (!success) {
//log and re-establish connection
} else {
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
private boolean checkHeath() {
try {
oos.writeObject("a");
return true;
} catch (Exception ex) {
return false;
}
}
}
it is ok, however why do you need to start a thread every time? Isn't it better to use Timer and TimerTask?
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/TimerTask.html
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Timer.html
I'm currently developping a ftp client based on the package commons.net, in order to run tests to see the speed of the connection.
Basically my ftp test consists in connect to the server, logging onto it, and then start a cycle of download/upload as long as necessary, until the user decides to stop it via a button, then the current cycle will end and so will the test.
However, while running those tests, a situation requiering a timout mechanism has occured. the server was transmitting the file, and send the return code 226 (transfer complete) before it was indeed completed.
So my thread remains stuck, trying to empty the inputStream when it is not possible anymore.
My idea was to start a threaded timer with the downloading process, that will be reset each time a byte is transferred to my client.
When the timeout occurs, then an exception or so would be raised, and my client would react to it, abording the download.
I have read and try many solutions, among them:
- raising an exception from a thread -> the thread catches the exception and not the client;
- interrupt the client from the thread, so the client raises itself an interruptedException -> doesn't seem to work;
- using an executor with a timeout -> since I can't know the "normal" duration of a download, I can't give it to the executor when I start the task, moreover, the timer has to be reset when I receive data.
I read a lot about it on many forums, and didn't find any solution that seem to be adapted AND work in this case. If anyone has an idea of another way to do it?
This is the code of the action I am performing:
public double get(String fileName) {
[...]
org.apache.commons.net.io.Util.copyStream(stO,stD,client.getBufferSize(),
this.localSize,
new org.apache.commons.net.io.CopyStreamAdapter() {
public void bytesTransferred(long totalBytesTransferred,
int bytesTransferred,long streamSize) {
setProgressDL(totalBytesTransferred);
//reset the timer here
}
});
[...]
}
Here is some of the code of my test, launching my client:
public class TestFtp extends Thread {
[...]
public void run() {
System.out.println("Launching FTP test");
FtpClient client = new FtpClient(this.model, this, this.model.getFtpServer());
try {
//Attempting connection on the server
client.connect();
try {
// Attempting login
client.login(this.model.getUsername(), this.model.getPassword());
do {
client.changeDirectory("get");
// start timer
client.get(this.model.getDistantFileName());
// stop timer
client.changeToParentDirectory();
client.changeDirectory("put");
client.set(this.model.getDistantFileName(),
this.model.getNewFileName());
client.changeToParentDirectory();
try {
// Little pause between each test
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
// Continue test until the user stops it
} while (this.continuous);
// Once the test is over, logout
client.logout();
} catch (FTPLoginException e) {
// If login fails, the test ends
System.out.println("Unable to login to the server.");
}
} catch (FTPConnectException e) {
// If connection error, the test ends
System.out.println("Unable to connect to the server.");
}
}
Thank you by advance if anyone can help, and if you need further information on my actual code, I can put more of it in here.
If you do not want to throw unecessary Exceptions, you should use a boolean flag that controls the execution of the thread (or runnable):
public class TestFtp extends Thread {
[...]
boolean abort;
public void run() {
[...]
do{
[...]
} while (this.continuous && !abort);
if (abort){
// You might want to do something here
}else{
// The stuff you normally do
}
}
}
And then simply set the abort flag to false from outside.
This way you can better control how you thread will terminate, as thread.interrupt(); will have an undefined behavior.
Well, I'm sorry but I admit I haven't read all your code, but if you want to interrupt a running thread, do two things:
run the thread code inside a try/catch block like this:
Example:
public void run() {
try {
// code to run
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// thread interrupted, may want to do some clean up
// but must return as quickly as possible to avoid halting external code
}
}
Call the interrupt() method of the thread above externally when the need arises.
Example:
thread.interrupt();
This will tell the VM to throw the InterruptedException in your thread no matter what it's doing, giving you a chance to do some stuff.
I hope this is what you're looking for...
EDIT
Ok, a concrete example that works:
public class Driver {
private static int count = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
bigTask();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
System.out.println("Interrupted thread! Count is " + count);
}
}
});
t.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println("Trying to interrupt thread");
t.interrupt();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
private static void bigTask() throws InterruptedException {
List<BigDecimal> bigs = new ArrayList<BigDecimal>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
bigs.add(BigDecimal.valueOf(i));
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
throw new InterruptedException();
}
count = i;
}
System.out.println("Ok, added ten million items, count is " + count);
}
}