We Keep Coding

Callable with while loop

I need to provide code that using ExecutorService, Callable and Future will be doing some calculations and printing the partial results until defined condition is reached. First thing that comes to my mind is using while loop. Unfortunately as I understand ExecutorService.get() waits until the task is done, so I cannot do something like (pseudo code):
public Object call() throws Exception {
try {
while(!condition) {
//perform calc
return partialCalculationResult;
}
}
catch(InterruptedException e){
}
}
Could anyone guide me what's the proper direction I should go for?

This here:
while(!condition) {
//perform calc
return partialCalculationResult;
}
indicates a "hole" in your logic. This should probably go like this instead:
while(!condition) {
// perform computation
push intermediate results somewhere
}
return finalResult;
In other words: you are talking about two different elements here. For those "progress" updates you will need some kind of shared data structure; for example a Queue.
You see, in difference to other languages, there is no built-in "generator" concept that would allow you to yield values from a loop; like you can do in python or scala for example.

The dirty option is putting a System.out.println within the while loop.
The cleaner option would be a publish/subscriber pattern, like:
interface Subscriber {
void onPartialResult(double partialResult);
}
class SystemOutSubscriber implements Subscriber{
#Override
void onPartialResult(double partialResult) {
System.out.println(partialResult);
}
}
class YourCalculatorClass {
List<Subscriber> subscribers = ...
public Object call() throws Exception {
while(!condition) {
//perform calc
for(Subscriber s : subscribers) {
s.onPartialResult(partialCalculationResult);
}
}
}
}

You can use Thread.interrupt to stop the thread inside while loop and add remaining result in list
while(!condition){ list.add(addResultHere)
Thread.interrupt(); }

Below is a small example of using an ExecutorService
to push callable tasks. I push them inside a while loop now for the ease of the example, but they can come from anywhere. The callable itself uses the most silly easy example of course where it takes in a number. If the number is below 5, all is good, and we return a text. If not, we return nothing. When the future is evaluated and the result is empty, we shut down the ExecutorService and call it a day. So, this is an example of using an ExecutorService, Callable, and Future to do something at least similar to what I could discern from your explanation.
public ExecutorServiceTest() {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
int num = 0;
while (true) {
Future<Optional<String>> future = service.submit(new MyCallable(num++));
try {
Optional<String> result = future.get();
if (!result.isPresent()) {
service.shutdown();
break;
}
System.out.println(result.get());
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
service.shutdown();
}
}
}
private static class MyCallable implements Callable<Optional<String>> {
private final int num;
MyCallable(int num) {
this.num = num;
}
#Override
public Optional<String> call() throws Exception {
if (num < 5)
return Optional.of("My number is " + num);
return Optional.empty();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new ExecutorServiceTest();
}

How do I properly shut down a BlockingQueue?

I have a BlockingQueue that processes work events on a single background thread. Various threads call add to add some work to the queue and a single background thread calls take to get the work and process it one a time. Eventually it may be time to stop the processing of work and I want to make sure that the callers who requested work either get their results or get null indicating their work was not done because the BlockingQueue is shutting down.
How do I cleanly stop accepting new work, the best I can think of is to set BlockingQueue field to null and then catch NullPointerException when add is called. Before setting the field to null I will keep a local copy of the pointer so I can drain it after it has stopped accepting work. I think that will work, but it seems a bit hacky, is there a proper way to do this?
Here is what the code looks like now:
ArrayBlockingQueue<Command> commandQueue =
new ArrayBlockingQueue<Command>(100, true);
public boolean addToQueue(Command command) {
try {
return commandQueue.add(command);
} catch (IllegalStateException e) {
return false;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
Command command = commandQueue.take();
// ... work happens here
// result is sent back to caller
command.provideResponseData(response);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Break out of the loop and stop
}
// TODO: stop accepting any new work, drain the queue of existing work
// and provide null responses
}

Rather than work with BlockingQueue and a worker thread, consider using a single-thread ThreadPoolExecutor. Something like this:
private class CommandRunner implements Runnable {
public CommandRunner(Command command) {
this.command = command;
}
public void run() {
// ... work happens here
// result is sent back to caller
command.provideResponseData(response);
}
}
private ExecutorService commandExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
public boolean addToQueue(Command command) {
commandExecutor.submit(new CommandRunner(command));
}
And then your shutdown methods can delegate to the executor.

As mentioned before, use an ExecutorService or ThreadPool, but submit Callables instead of mere Runnables. Have your worker threads observe some stop signal (maybe an AtomicBoolean visible to all of them). If the flag has been set, make the Callables return a special value to indicate that nothing was done. Callers must retain the Future returned by submit to get the Callable's result.
Maybe I should elaborate some more. If you are currently using Runnables, maybe wrap them in Callables and, in call, check the stop flag. If you set the stop flag before you call ExecutorService.shutdown, it will complete the current job normally, but effectively cancel all remaining jobs, therefore draining the remaining queue fast. If you do not shut down, you can even reuse the ExecutorService after resetting the stop flag.
static enum EResult {
Cancelled, Completed
}
static abstract class MyCallable implements Callable<EResult> {
Runnable runner;
public MyCallable( Runnable runner) {
super();
this.runner = runner;
}
}
static AtomicBoolean cancelled = new AtomicBoolean( false);
static void main( String[] argv) {
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println( "Done");
}
};
Callable<EResult> callable = new MyCallable( runnable) {
#Override
public EResult call() throws Exception {
if ( cancelled.get()) {
return EResult.Cancelled;
}
runner.run();
return EResult.Completed;
}
};
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool( 1);
// while submitting jobs, change cancelled at some point
Future<EResult> future = executorService.submit( callable);
try {
EResult completeOrNot = future.get();
System.out.println( "result: " + completeOrNot);
} catch ( InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch ( ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}

Which is the neatest and/or most effective approach to kill a thread

I have a task x that is executed continuously in a thread which will only stop when the boolean changes it's state to true. I have done some reading and there are 3 ways that I approach when killing threads that are in the code below. Which of the 3 methods is effective ? And if none of them aren't effective or correct kindly suggest a proper approach with some code for reference.
Below is the code :
public class MyTest {
private static class transaction {
private String param1,param2,param3, param4, param5;
public transaction (String param1,String param2,String param3,String param4,String param5){
this.param1=param1;
this.param2=param2;
this.param3=param3;
this.param4=param4;
this.param5=param5;
}
public String getParam1(){
return this.param1;
}
public String getParam2(){
return this.param2;
}
public String getParam3(){
return this.param3;
}
public String getParam4(){
return this.param4;
}
public String getParam5(){
return this.param5;
}
}
public static void processBatch(String workerName){
try{
java.util.List <transaction> transactions= new java.util.LinkedList<transaction>();
java.sql.ResultSet dbtrx=Database.db.execQuery((Object)"dbname.procname");
while(dbtrx.next()){// Takes a snapshot of the pending payments in the table and stores it into the list.
Object obj=new transaction (dbtrx.getString("col1"), dbtrx.getString("col2"), dbtrx.getString("col3"), dbtrx.getString("col4"), dbtrx.getString("col5"));
transactions.add((transaction)obj);
obj=null;
}
java.util.Iterator<transaction> iterate= transactions.iterator();
/* Processes the pending batch payments*/
while(iterate.hasNext()){
transaction trx=iterate.next();
/*Calls posting function here*/
System.out.println(workerName+":- Param1 : "+trx.getParam1()+" - Param2 : " +trx.getParam2()+
" - Param3 : "+ trx.getParam3()+" - Param4 : "+ trx.getParam4()+" - Param5 : "+ trx.getParam5());
iterate.remove();
}
/*cleaning object references*/
dbtrx=null;
transactions=null;
iterate=null;
}catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void main(String [] args) throws InterruptedException{
volatile boolean stop=false;
Object hold= new Object();
new Thread("Batch Worker A"){
#Override
public void run(){
while(true){
if(stop!=true){
processBatch(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}else{
try{
Thread.sleep(0);
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}catch(java.lang.InterruptedException e){
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
break;
}
}
}
}}.start();
new Thread("Batch Worker B"){
#Override
public void run(){
try{
while(stop!=true){
processBatch(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
Thread.sleep(0);
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}catch(java.lang.InterruptedException e){
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}}.start();
new Thread("Batch Worker C"){
#Override
public void run(){
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
if(stop!=true){
processBatch(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}else{
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}}.start();
}
}
}

The recommended approach is to use the thread's interrupted flag to signal the thread loop to terminate. There's no reason to use two flags (stopped and the interrupted flag) where one will do, and you don't seem to be using the interrupted flag for anything else.
See the Java tutorial subject Interrupts for a more extensive discussion and examples.

Why not simply this way:
new Thread("Batch Worker A"){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!stop){
processBatch(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}}.start();
Alternatively, use Thread.interrupt() like so:
new Thread("Batch Worker A"){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!interrupted()){
processBatch(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}}.start();
but then you need to keep reference to all the threads, and interrupt them all, so the boolean flag might be simpler (be sure to make it volatile).

In all of your examples, you aren't really killing the thread, you are stopping the batch from processing more items.
To understand the difference, note that none of your methods would actually stop the thread while the thread is within the processBatch function.
There are some things to take note of:
There is no point in calling Interrupt() on your current thread. The idea behind Interrupt is for external threads to call it. In your case, you can just as well throw an exception, or return from the run() function (which would shut down the thread automatically).
Even interrupt() can't in many situations stop a thread if that thread is locked outside java ,such as thread waiting for IO (if not using NIO), including a socket, which is what the database connection is, you'll need to design a different way to stop a thread inside IO (usually by doing a timeout, but there are other ways).
if you goal is simply to stop the next batch from happing use the code from Joonas :
new Thread("Batch Worker A"){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!stop){
processBatch(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}}.start();
if your goal is to interrupt the process while running the batch, you can just as well do:
public static void main(String[] args) {
var t =new Thread("Batch Worker A"){
#Override
public void run() {
processBatch(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}.start();
t.interrupt();
}
in general interrupt is the preferred method, and using a local scoped variable and anonymous classes is a really bad idea (use a static variable, or better an injected interface with a function to check if the thread should continue).

Java signal/event mechanism to indicate some value is available

I have a generator class that owns a Thread in which a number of "records" to be generated is determined, then generates that many records (which get placed in a BlockingQueue for retrieval by another thread).
I'd like the other thread to know how many records are going to be generated (for sensible progress reporting among other things).
It seems Future gives me exactly the interface I'm after, but I'm new to Java, and not sure of the idiomatic way of implementing it.
My background is in C++/Win32, so I'd normally use a win32 "Event" (as created by CreateEvent(0, true, false, 0), with SetEvent and WaitForSingleObject for my signal and wait implementations). I've noticed Java has a CountDownLatch, but this somehow feels heavier than what I'm after (somewhat akin to using an int when I really want a boolean), and it seems unintuitive for this purpose (to me, anyway).
So here's my code using CountDownLatch and a Future. I've distilled my real code down a bit here (removed irrelevant implementation details and ignoring all error handling).
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
import java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public abstract class Generator {
private CountDownLatch numRecordsSignal = new CountDownLatch(1);
private int numRecords;
private BlockingQueue<Record> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Record>();
public Generator() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
numRecords = calculateNumRecords();
numRecordsSignal.countDown();
for (Record r : generateRecords()) {
try {
queue.put(r);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// [ ... snip ... ]
}
}
}
}).start();
}
public Future<Integer> numRecords() {
return new Future<Integer>() {
// Ignore cancel for now (It wouldn't make sense to cancel
// just this part of the Generator's work, anyway).
public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
return false;
}
public Integer get() throws InterruptedException {
numRecordsSignal.await();
return numRecords;
}
public Integer get(long timeout, TimeUnit unit)
throws InterruptedException {
numRecordsSignal.await(timeout, unit);
return numRecords;
}
public boolean isCancelled() {
return false;
}
public boolean isDone() {
// Since we can't cancel, just check the state of the
// signal
return numRecordsSignal.getCount() == 0;
}
};
}
public Record nextRecord() throws InterruptedException {
return queue.take();
}
/** --- Boring stuff below this line --- */
public interface Record { }
protected abstract int calculateNumRecords();
protected abstract Iterable<Record> generateRecords();
}
Now for my actual questions:
Is there a better mechanism than CountDownLatch for single-shot signalling?
I want callers to be able to either wait or poll on the result, but don't need them to be able to cancel the operation. Is Future the right way to expose this stuff?
Does any of this stuff look particularly "un-Java"? Am I on the wrong track completely?
Edit:
Just to clarify, I expect the caller to be able to do the following:
Generator gen = new Generator();
Integer numRecords = gen.numRecords().get(); // This call might block waiting for the result
numRecords = gen.numRecords().get(); // This call will never block, as the result is already available.
It's just a slow-to-initialise value I'm trying to implement. Once the "initialised" condition is met, it should latch. The value doesn't get re-evaluated once it's known.

Side comment
You should not start a thread in a constructor - it is very conceivable that the Generator object is not fully created when the thread starts, and the countdown latch could well be null for example. You can create the thread in the constructor, but should start it in a seperate method. Your calling code would become:
Generator g = new Generator();
g.start();
Your question
You are reimplementing a Future yourself, which is not necessary nor desirable in my opinion. I would redesign the class and make Generator implement Callable<Integer> and run it through an executor. That provides you with several things:
remove the threading logic from the Generator, which enables you a more efficient management of your threads at a higher level in your call stack
the integer is returned via the future in your calling code and you rely on the JDK to handle the implementation
I have assumed that it's ok to first populate the queue then return the integer
you can call future.get() as many times as you want - it will only block the first time it is called.
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
Future<Integer> future = executor.submit(new GeneratorImpl()); //a concrete implementation of Generator
int numRecords = 0;
try {
numRecords = future.get(); //you can use a get with timeout here
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
//an exception happened in Generator#call()
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//handle it
}
//don't forget to call executor.shutdown() when you don't need it any longer
}
public abstract class Generator implements Callable<Integer> {
private BlockingQueue<Record> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Record>();
#Override
public Integer call() {
int numRecords = calculateNumRecords();
for (Record r : generateRecords()) {
try {
queue.put(r);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// [ ... snip ... ]
}
}
return numRecords;
}
public Record nextRecord() throws InterruptedException {
return queue.take();
}
/**
* --- Boring stuff below this line ---
*/
public interface Record {
}
protected abstract int calculateNumRecords();
protected abstract Iterable<Record> generateRecords();
}
EDIT
If you need to return numRecods asap, you can populate your queue in a separate thread:
public Integer call() {
int numRecords = calculateNumRecords();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (Record r : generateRecords()) {
try {
queue.put(r);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// [ ... snip ... ]
}
}
}
}).start(); //returns immediately
return numRecords;
}

The standard Java equivalents of "WaitOnSingleEvent()" and "SetEvent()" for Java threads are "wait()", "notify()" and "notifyAll()".

After looking at implementing my own signal mechanism and following the bread-crumb trail left by others doing the same thing, I came across the javadoc for AbstractQueuedSynchronizer, which includes a code snippet for a "BooleanLatch", which perfectly meets my needs:
class BooleanLatch {
private static class Sync extends AbstractQueuedSynchronizer {
boolean isSignalled() { return getState() != 0; }
protected int tryAcquireShared(int ignore) {
return isSignalled()? 1 : -1;
}
protected boolean tryReleaseShared(int ignore) {
setState(1);
return true;
}
}
private final Sync sync = new Sync();
public boolean isSignalled() { return sync.isSignalled(); }
public void signal() { sync.releaseShared(1); }
public void await() throws InterruptedException {
sync.acquireSharedInterruptibly(1);
}
}
Doing a bit more searching, I found that a number of frameworks include a BooleanLatch (Apache Qpid being one). Some implementations (such as Atlassian's), are auto-resetting, which would make them inappropriate for my needs.

Standard observer notification pattern can be helpful here, if i understood your problem correctly.

For one shot signalling in this scenario Semaphore is better as it remembers the "signal".
Condition object [wait() is on a condition] won't remember the signal.
Semaphore numRecordsUpdated = new Semaphore(0);
In Generator
numRecordsUpdated.release();
In consumer
numRecordsUpdated.acquire();

How do I call some blocking method with a timeout in Java?

Is there a standard nice way to call a blocking method with a timeout in Java? I want to be able to do:
// call something.blockingMethod();
// if it hasn't come back within 2 seconds, forget it
if that makes sense.
Thanks.

You could use an Executor:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Callable<Object> task = new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() {
return something.blockingMethod();
}
};
Future<Object> future = executor.submit(task);
try {
Object result = future.get(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException ex) {
// handle the timeout
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle the interrupts
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// handle other exceptions
} finally {
future.cancel(true); // may or may not desire this
}
If the future.get doesn't return in 5 seconds, it throws a TimeoutException. The timeout can be configured in seconds, minutes, milliseconds or any unit available as a constant in TimeUnit.
See the JavaDoc for more detail.

You could wrap the call in a FutureTask and use the timeout version of get().
See http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/FutureTask.html

See also Guava's TimeLimiter which uses an Executor behind the scenes.

It's really great that people try to implement this in so many ways. But the truth is, there is NO way.
Most developers would try to put the blocking call in a different thread and have a future or some timer. BUT there is no way in Java to stop a thread externally, let alone a few very specific cases like the Thread.sleep() and Lock.lockInterruptibly() methods that explicitly handle thread interruption.
So really you have only 3 generic options:
Put your blocking call on a new thread and if the time expires you just move on, leaving that thread hanging. In that case you should make sure the thread is set to be a Daemon thread. This way the thread will not stop your application from terminating.
Use non blocking Java APIs. So for network for example, use NIO2 and use the non blocking methods. For reading from the console use Scanner.hasNext() before blocking etc.
If your blocking call is not an IO, but your logic, then you can repeatedly check for Thread.isInterrupted() to check if it was interrupted externally, and have another thread call thread.interrupt() on the blocking thread
This course about concurrency https://www.udemy.com/java-multithreading-concurrency-performance-optimization/?couponCode=CONCURRENCY
really walks through those fundamentals if you really want to understand how it works in Java. It actually talks about those specific limitations and scenarios, and how to go about them in one of the lectures.
I personally try to program without using blocking calls as much as possible. There are toolkits like Vert.x for example that make it really easy and performant to do IO and no IO operations asynchronously and in a non blocking way.
I hope it helps

There is also an AspectJ solution for that with jcabi-aspects library.
#Timeable(limit = 30, unit = TimeUnit.MINUTES)
public Soup cookSoup() {
// Cook soup, but for no more than 30 minutes (throw and exception if it takes any longer
}
It can't get more succinct, but you have to depend on AspectJ and introduce it in your build lifecycle, of course.
There is an article explaining it further: Limit Java Method Execution Time

I'm giving you here the complete code. In place of the method I'm calling, you can use your method:
public class NewTimeout {
public String simpleMethod() {
return "simple method";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
Callable<Object> task = new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(1100);
return new NewTimeout().simpleMethod();
}
};
Future<Object> future = executor.submit(task);
try {
Object result = future.get(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println(result);
} catch (TimeoutException ex) {
System.out.println("Timeout............Timeout...........");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle the interrupts
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// handle other exceptions
} finally {
executor.shutdown(); // may or may not desire this
}
}
}

Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
something.blockingMethod();
}
});
thread.start();
thread.join(2000);
if (thread.isAlive()) {
thread.stop();
}
Note, that stop is deprecated, better alternative is to set some volatile boolean flag, inside blockingMethod() check it and exit, like this:
import org.junit.*;
import java.util.*;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
public class ThreadTest extends TestCase {
static class Something implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean stopRequested;
private final int steps;
private final long waitPerStep;
public Something(int steps, long waitPerStep) {
this.steps = steps;
this.waitPerStep = waitPerStep;
}
#Override
public void run() {
blockingMethod();
}
public void blockingMethod() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < steps && !stopRequested; i++) {
doALittleBit();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
public void doALittleBit() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(waitPerStep);
}
public void setStopRequested(boolean stopRequested) {
this.stopRequested = stopRequested;
}
}
#Test
public void test() throws InterruptedException {
final Something somethingRunnable = new Something(5, 1000);
Thread thread = new Thread(somethingRunnable);
thread.start();
thread.join(2000);
if (thread.isAlive()) {
somethingRunnable.setStopRequested(true);
thread.join(2000);
assertFalse(thread.isAlive());
} else {
fail("Exptected to be alive (5 * 1000 > 2000)");
}
}
}

You need a circuit breaker implementation like the one present in the failsafe project on GitHub.

Try this. More simple solution. Guarantees that if block didn't execute within the time limit. the process will terminate and throws an exception.
public class TimeoutBlock {
private final long timeoutMilliSeconds;
private long timeoutInteval=100;
public TimeoutBlock(long timeoutMilliSeconds){
this.timeoutMilliSeconds=timeoutMilliSeconds;
}
public void addBlock(Runnable runnable) throws Throwable{
long collectIntervals=0;
Thread timeoutWorker=new Thread(runnable);
timeoutWorker.start();
do{
if(collectIntervals>=this.timeoutMilliSeconds){
timeoutWorker.stop();
throw new Exception("<<<<<<<<<<****>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Execution Time Exceeded In "+timeoutMilliSeconds+" Milli Seconds. Thread Block Terminated.");
}
collectIntervals+=timeoutInteval;
Thread.sleep(timeoutInteval);
}while(timeoutWorker.isAlive());
System.out.println("<<<<<<<<<<####>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Executed Within "+collectIntervals+" Milli Seconds.");
}
/**
* #return the timeoutInteval
*/
public long getTimeoutInteval() {
return timeoutInteval;
}
/**
* #param timeoutInteval the timeoutInteval to set
*/
public void setTimeoutInteval(long timeoutInteval) {
this.timeoutInteval = timeoutInteval;
}
}
example :
try {
TimeoutBlock timeoutBlock = new TimeoutBlock(10 * 60 * 1000);//set timeout in milliseconds
Runnable block=new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//TO DO write block of code
}
};
timeoutBlock.addBlock(block);// execute the runnable block
} catch (Throwable e) {
//catch the exception here . Which is block didn't execute within the time limit
}

In special case of a blocking queue:
Generic java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue has a poll method with timeout parameter.

Assume blockingMethod just sleep for some millis:
public void blockingMethod(Object input) {
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
My solution is to use wait() and synchronized like this:
public void blockingMethod(final Object input, long millis) {
final Object lock = new Object();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
blockingMethod(input);
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notify();
}
}
}).start();
synchronized (lock) {
try {
// Wait for specific millis and release the lock.
// If blockingMethod is done during waiting time, it will wake
// me up and give me the lock, and I will finish directly.
// Otherwise, when the waiting time is over and the
// blockingMethod is still
// running, I will reacquire the lock and finish.
lock.wait(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
So u can replace
something.blockingMethod(input)
to
something.blockingMethod(input, 2000)
Hope it helps.