I have this pairing mechanism idea that identifies Clients by their ThreadID. When the thread is destroyed, the client's pairing is destroyed and its ID is set to -1.
Now in order for me to get the Thread ID, the thread must of course have been running or started.
I want to know if I can create a thread, get the ID and then set the runnable later on OR if I can get the ID of the current thread that's running my function..
Example of what I want to do:
void createClientThreaded(final Client client) {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
while(!client.stop()) {
Utils.sleep(1000);
//Do other stuff here..
client.setThreadID(/* This Thread's ID */);
// Do other stuff here..
}
}
});
}
Any ideas on how I can do this? Also would the Thread ID's be unique per process or unique for the whole system? In other words, can two jar files running at the same time have the same Thread ID?
The thread id is immutable, so you won't be able to set it to -1 when the thread terminates.
The id is created as soon as the thread is created, not as soon as the thread is started, so you can create the thread, read its id, and start it later.
However, if you're creating and destroying a lot of threads, then you're going to incur a high runtime cost. It would be more efficient to use a ThreadPoolExecutor to execute your runnables, however this precludes the option of creating a thread, reading its id, and starting the thread later. Another option is to create your own class that implements Runnable with a mutable id.
class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private static AtomicLong idCounter = new AtomicLong(0);
private long id;
public MyRunnable() { this.id = idCounter.getAndIncrement(); }
public void setId(long id) { this.id = id; }
public long getId() { return this.id; }
public void run() {}
}
Thread ids are per process, not system-wide. In addition, the process may reuse thread ids (e.g. if the thread with id=5 terminates, then the process may assign id=5 to a new thread).
To run a runnable at some later time:
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
DelayedExecutionThread blocker = new DelayedExecutionThread();
Thread t = blocker.getThread();
t.start();
System.out.println("Thread Started..");
sleep(3000);
System.out.println("Executing..");
blocker.setRunnable(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("RAN THE THREAD LATER");
}
});
sleep(1);
System.out.println("Executed..");
}
private static class DelayedExecutionThread {
private Semaphore lock = new Semaphore(1, true);
private Thread thread;
private Runnable target;
public DelayedExecutionThread() {
this.lock.acquireUninterruptibly();
this.thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
DelayedExecutionThread.this.lock.acquireUninterruptibly();
DelayedExecutionThread.this.lock.release();
DelayedExecutionThread.this.lock = null;
if (DelayedExecutionThread.this.target != null) {
DelayedExecutionThread.this.target.run();
}
}
});
}
public Thread getThread() {
return this.thread;
}
public void setRunnable(Runnable runnable) {
this.lock.release();
this.target = runnable;
}
}
private static void sleep(long millis) {
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I used a semaphore. You just need some sort of locking or condition. When the thread is started, it attempts to acquire the lock which causes it to "wait" until it can acquire it. When you set the runnable at some later point in time, it will release the lock causing the thread to acquire it, release it, and continue execution.
Related
I know that there are a lot of similar questions, but no one helped me. I am getting IllegalMonitorStateException: object not locked by thread before wait() when I try to pause the thread.
Here is my initialization method:
// called only once in constructor; the variables are global ( private Thread ... )
public void init() {
recordingThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
isNewRecordingThread= false;
record();
}
});
recognitionThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
isNewRecognition= false;
recognize();
}
});
...
}
startRecording method:
private synchronized void startRecording(Thread recordingThread) {
if(isNewRecordingThread){
recordingThread.start();
return;
}
recordingThread.notify();
}
startRecognition method:
private synchronized void startRecognition(Thread recognitionThread) {
shouldContinueRecognition = true;
if(isNewRecognition){
recognitionThread.start();
return;
}
recognitionThread.notify();
}
And the stopping method where I actually get the error:
private synchronized void stopRecordingAndRecognition(Thread recordingThread, Thread recognitionThread) {
try{
if (recordingThread != null && recordingThread.isAlive()) {
recordingThread.wait();
}
if (recognitionThread != null && recognitionThread.isAlive()) {
recognitionThread.wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e){
Log.d("TESTING","InterruptedException e= "+e);
}
}
"object not locked by thread before wait()"
Think, what object is meant in this message? That very object for which wait() is applied:
recordingThread.wait();
that is, recordingThread.
synchronized void stopRecordingAndRecognition is irrelevant because it locks this object, and not recordingThread.
So, there are 2 solutions:
force methods to synchronize on recordingThread
embed synchronized methods into the class of recordingThread
"The goal is to start thread, pause it and after resume"
Pausing and resuming threads in Java is a bad practice because leads to subtle and hard to debug errors.
The only reliable way to stop/resume some computational process is to split this process into parts, process that parts in a loop, and before the start of processing the next part, checking if processing is allowed.
As an evolution of this approach, each part is formed as a Runnable and is submitted to a single-threaded Executor. Instead of stop and resume the Executor, producer thread(s) simply stop and resume submitting the partial tasks to the executor.
If (some) parts can be processed in parallel, then multithreaded executor can be used, but it requires coordination between submitting particular tasks.
The goal is to start thread, pause it and after resume
Here is a code snippet that I use for suspending and resuming a thread.
public class ThreadStatus {
private boolean paused;
private final String threadName;
private final ReentrantLock lock;
private final Condition condition;
public ThreadStatus (String name) {
threadName = name;
lock = new ReentrantLock();
condition = lock.newCondition();
paused = false;
}
// check for the thread to be paused
public void checkForPause() {
lock.lock();
try {
while (paused) {
condition.await();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// interrupted
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
// Pause the thread
public void pause() {
lock.lock();
try {
paused = true;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
// Resume the thread
public void resume() {
lock.lock();
try {
paused = false;
condition.signalAll();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return threadName;
}
}
If you need you could implement isStopped() or isRunning() similarly.
final ThreadStatus threadStatus = new ThreadStatus("Thread-A");
In the client code, call threadStatus.checkForPause() at the relevant point. For example, if you have some repeated processings inside a loop, you can do something like -
while (!threadStatus.isStopped()) {
threadStatus.checkForPause();
// do your processing here
}
I need a solution to properly stop the thread in Java.
I have IndexProcessorclass which implements the Runnable interface:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
#Override
public void run() {
boolean run = true;
while (run) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
}
And I have ServletContextListener class which starts and stops the thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor());
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
thread.interrupt();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
But when I shutdown tomcat, I get the exception in my IndexProcessor class:
2012-06-09 17:04:50,671 [Thread-3] ERROR IndexProcessor Exception
java.lang.InterruptedException: sleep interrupted
at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
at lt.ccl.searchengine.processor.IndexProcessor.run(IndexProcessor.java:22)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
I am using JDK 1.6. So the question is:
How can I stop the thread and not throw any exceptions?
P.S. I do not want to use .stop(); method because it is deprecated.
Using Thread.interrupt() is a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. In fact, it's probably preferrable to a flag as suggested above. The reason being that if you're in an interruptable blocking call (like Thread.sleep or using java.nio Channel operations), you'll actually be able to break out of those right away.
If you use a flag, you have to wait for the blocking operation to finish and then you can check your flag. In some cases you have to do this anyway, such as using standard InputStream/OutputStream which are not interruptable.
In that case, when a thread is interrupted, it will not interrupt the IO, however, you can easily do this routinely in your code (and you should do this at strategic points where you can safely stop and cleanup)
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// cleanup and stop execution
// for example a break in a loop
}
Like I said, the main advantage to Thread.interrupt() is that you can immediately break out of interruptable calls, which you can't do with the flag approach.
In the IndexProcessor class you need a way of setting a flag which informs the thread that it will need to terminate, similar to the variable run that you have used just in the class scope.
When you wish to stop the thread, you set this flag and call join() on the thread and wait for it to finish.
Make sure that the flag is thread safe by using a volatile variable or by using getter and setter methods which are synchronised with the variable being used as the flag.
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean running = true;
public void terminate() {
running = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
running = false;
}
}
}
}
Then in SearchEngineContextListener:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
runnable = new IndexProcessor();
thread = new Thread(runnable);
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
runnable.terminate();
thread.join();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
Simple answer:
You can stop a thread INTERNALLY in one of two common ways:
The run method hits a return subroutine.
Run method finishes, and returns implicitly.
You can also stop threads EXTERNALLY:
Call system.exit (this kills your entire process)
Call the thread object's interrupt() method *
See if the thread has an implemented method that sounds like it would work (like kill() or stop())
*: The expectation is that this is supposed to stop a thread. However, what the thread actually does when this happens is entirely up to what the developer wrote when they created the thread implementation.
A common pattern you see with run method implementations is a while(boolean){}, where the boolean is typically something named isRunning, it's a member variable of its thread class, it's volatile, and typically accessible by other threads by a setter method of sorts, e.g. kill() { isRunnable=false; }. These subroutines are nice because they allow the thread to release any resources it holds before terminating.
You should always end threads by checking a flag in the run() loop (if any).
Your thread should look like this:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean execute;
#Override
public void run() {
this.execute = true;
while (this.execute) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
this.execute = false;
}
}
}
public void stopExecuting() {
this.execute = false;
}
}
Then you can end the thread by calling thread.stopExecuting(). That way the thread is ended clean, but this takes up to 15 seconds (due to your sleep).
You can still call thread.interrupt() if it's really urgent - but the prefered way should always be checking the flag.
To avoid waiting for 15 seconds, you can split up the sleep like this:
...
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
for (int i = 0; (i < 150) && this.execute; i++) {
Thread.sleep((long) 100);
}
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
...
Typically, a thread is terminated when it's interrupted. So, why not use the native boolean? Try isInterrupted():
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
// do stuff
}
}});
t.start();
// Sleep a second, and then interrupt
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
t.interrupt();
ref- How can I kill a thread? without using stop();
For synchronizing threads I prefer using CountDownLatch which helps threads to wait until the process being performed complete. In this case, the worker class is set up with a CountDownLatch instance with a given count. A call to await method will block until the current count reaches zero due to invocations of the countDown method or the timeout set is reached. This approach allows interrupting a thread instantly without having to wait for the specified waiting time to elapse:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private final CountDownLatch countdownlatch;
public IndexProcessor(CountDownLatch countdownlatch) {
this.countdownlatch = countdownlatch;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (!countdownlatch.await(15000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
LOGGER.debug("Processing...");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
When you want to finish execution of the other thread, execute countDown on the CountDownLatch and join the thread to the main thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
private CountDownLatch countdownLatch = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
countdownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Thread thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor(countdownLatch));
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (countdownLatch != null)
{
countdownLatch.countDown();
}
if (thread != null) {
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
}
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
Some supplementary info.
Both flag and interrupt are suggested in the Java doc.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concurrency/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
private volatile Thread blinker;
public void stop() {
blinker = null;
}
public void run() {
Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (blinker == thisThread) {
try {
Thread.sleep(interval);
} catch (InterruptedException e){
}
repaint();
}
}
For a thread that waits for long periods (e.g., for input), use Thread.interrupt
public void stop() {
Thread moribund = waiter;
waiter = null;
moribund.interrupt();
}
I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
threadCheckChat = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
threadCheckChat.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}
Brian Goetz in his book suggests to use Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() flag and interrupt() method for cancellation.
Blocking library methods like sleep() and wait() try to detect when a thread has been interrupted and return early. They respond to interruption by clearing the interrupted status and throwing InterruptedException, indicating that the blocking operation completed early due to interruption.
The JVM makes no guarantees on how quickly a blocking method will detect interruption, but in practice this happens reasonably quickly.
class PrimeProducer extends Thread {
private final BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue;
PrimeProducer(BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run() {
try {
BigInteger p = BigInteger.ONE;
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
queue.put(p = p.nextProbablePrime()); // blocking operation
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed) {
// allow thread to exit
}
// any code here will still be executed
}
public void cancel() {
interrupt();
}
}
If you put any code after catch block, it will still be executed as we swallow InterruptedException to exit from run() gracefully.
Just a couple words on how interrupt() works.
If interrupt is called on non-blocked thread, interrupt() will not cause InterruptedException inside run() but will just change flag isInterrupted to true and thread will continue its work until it reaches Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() check and exit from run().
If interrupt is called on blocked thread (sleep() or wait()was called, in our case it's put() that might block a thread) then isInterrupted will be set to false and InterruptedException will be thrown inside put().
I need a solution to properly stop the thread in Java.
I have IndexProcessorclass which implements the Runnable interface:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
#Override
public void run() {
boolean run = true;
while (run) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
}
And I have ServletContextListener class which starts and stops the thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor());
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
thread.interrupt();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
But when I shutdown tomcat, I get the exception in my IndexProcessor class:
2012-06-09 17:04:50,671 [Thread-3] ERROR IndexProcessor Exception
java.lang.InterruptedException: sleep interrupted
at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
at lt.ccl.searchengine.processor.IndexProcessor.run(IndexProcessor.java:22)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
I am using JDK 1.6. So the question is:
How can I stop the thread and not throw any exceptions?
P.S. I do not want to use .stop(); method because it is deprecated.
Using Thread.interrupt() is a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. In fact, it's probably preferrable to a flag as suggested above. The reason being that if you're in an interruptable blocking call (like Thread.sleep or using java.nio Channel operations), you'll actually be able to break out of those right away.
If you use a flag, you have to wait for the blocking operation to finish and then you can check your flag. In some cases you have to do this anyway, such as using standard InputStream/OutputStream which are not interruptable.
In that case, when a thread is interrupted, it will not interrupt the IO, however, you can easily do this routinely in your code (and you should do this at strategic points where you can safely stop and cleanup)
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// cleanup and stop execution
// for example a break in a loop
}
Like I said, the main advantage to Thread.interrupt() is that you can immediately break out of interruptable calls, which you can't do with the flag approach.
In the IndexProcessor class you need a way of setting a flag which informs the thread that it will need to terminate, similar to the variable run that you have used just in the class scope.
When you wish to stop the thread, you set this flag and call join() on the thread and wait for it to finish.
Make sure that the flag is thread safe by using a volatile variable or by using getter and setter methods which are synchronised with the variable being used as the flag.
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean running = true;
public void terminate() {
running = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
running = false;
}
}
}
}
Then in SearchEngineContextListener:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
runnable = new IndexProcessor();
thread = new Thread(runnable);
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
runnable.terminate();
thread.join();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
Simple answer:
You can stop a thread INTERNALLY in one of two common ways:
The run method hits a return subroutine.
Run method finishes, and returns implicitly.
You can also stop threads EXTERNALLY:
Call system.exit (this kills your entire process)
Call the thread object's interrupt() method *
See if the thread has an implemented method that sounds like it would work (like kill() or stop())
*: The expectation is that this is supposed to stop a thread. However, what the thread actually does when this happens is entirely up to what the developer wrote when they created the thread implementation.
A common pattern you see with run method implementations is a while(boolean){}, where the boolean is typically something named isRunning, it's a member variable of its thread class, it's volatile, and typically accessible by other threads by a setter method of sorts, e.g. kill() { isRunnable=false; }. These subroutines are nice because they allow the thread to release any resources it holds before terminating.
You should always end threads by checking a flag in the run() loop (if any).
Your thread should look like this:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean execute;
#Override
public void run() {
this.execute = true;
while (this.execute) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
this.execute = false;
}
}
}
public void stopExecuting() {
this.execute = false;
}
}
Then you can end the thread by calling thread.stopExecuting(). That way the thread is ended clean, but this takes up to 15 seconds (due to your sleep).
You can still call thread.interrupt() if it's really urgent - but the prefered way should always be checking the flag.
To avoid waiting for 15 seconds, you can split up the sleep like this:
...
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
for (int i = 0; (i < 150) && this.execute; i++) {
Thread.sleep((long) 100);
}
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
...
Typically, a thread is terminated when it's interrupted. So, why not use the native boolean? Try isInterrupted():
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
// do stuff
}
}});
t.start();
// Sleep a second, and then interrupt
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
t.interrupt();
ref- How can I kill a thread? without using stop();
For synchronizing threads I prefer using CountDownLatch which helps threads to wait until the process being performed complete. In this case, the worker class is set up with a CountDownLatch instance with a given count. A call to await method will block until the current count reaches zero due to invocations of the countDown method or the timeout set is reached. This approach allows interrupting a thread instantly without having to wait for the specified waiting time to elapse:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private final CountDownLatch countdownlatch;
public IndexProcessor(CountDownLatch countdownlatch) {
this.countdownlatch = countdownlatch;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (!countdownlatch.await(15000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
LOGGER.debug("Processing...");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
When you want to finish execution of the other thread, execute countDown on the CountDownLatch and join the thread to the main thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
private CountDownLatch countdownLatch = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
countdownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Thread thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor(countdownLatch));
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (countdownLatch != null)
{
countdownLatch.countDown();
}
if (thread != null) {
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
}
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
Some supplementary info.
Both flag and interrupt are suggested in the Java doc.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concurrency/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
private volatile Thread blinker;
public void stop() {
blinker = null;
}
public void run() {
Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (blinker == thisThread) {
try {
Thread.sleep(interval);
} catch (InterruptedException e){
}
repaint();
}
}
For a thread that waits for long periods (e.g., for input), use Thread.interrupt
public void stop() {
Thread moribund = waiter;
waiter = null;
moribund.interrupt();
}
I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
threadCheckChat = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
threadCheckChat.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}
Brian Goetz in his book suggests to use Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() flag and interrupt() method for cancellation.
Blocking library methods like sleep() and wait() try to detect when a thread has been interrupted and return early. They respond to interruption by clearing the interrupted status and throwing InterruptedException, indicating that the blocking operation completed early due to interruption.
The JVM makes no guarantees on how quickly a blocking method will detect interruption, but in practice this happens reasonably quickly.
class PrimeProducer extends Thread {
private final BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue;
PrimeProducer(BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run() {
try {
BigInteger p = BigInteger.ONE;
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
queue.put(p = p.nextProbablePrime()); // blocking operation
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed) {
// allow thread to exit
}
// any code here will still be executed
}
public void cancel() {
interrupt();
}
}
If you put any code after catch block, it will still be executed as we swallow InterruptedException to exit from run() gracefully.
Just a couple words on how interrupt() works.
If interrupt is called on non-blocked thread, interrupt() will not cause InterruptedException inside run() but will just change flag isInterrupted to true and thread will continue its work until it reaches Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() check and exit from run().
If interrupt is called on blocked thread (sleep() or wait()was called, in our case it's put() that might block a thread) then isInterrupted will be set to false and InterruptedException will be thrown inside put().
I want to have a class that starts a Thread and provides methods to pause and continue this Thread. My first approach was to have flag, which loops a sleep method as long as the value is true. Something like :
public class Bot {
private Thread t ;
private boolean isPaused;
public Bot(){
t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
System.out.println("Hi");
while(isPaused){
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
t.start();
}
public void pauseBot(){
isPaused = true;
}
public void continueBot(){
isPaused = false;
}
}
But since the Thread is still running and wasting CPU, I dont find this to be a good solution. How would this look with wait() and notify().
I had a look at various tutorials about that topic but somehow I couldnt apply them to my issue.
Everytime I tried it I either got IllegalMonitorStateException or the code stopped my whole application and not just the Thread I wanted to be stopped.
Another question I have is: How do prevent the Thread from beeing paused at a critical moment e.g.
Runnable r = new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
task1();
task2();
//Thread mustn't be stopped from here....
task3();
task4();
task5();
task6();
task7();
//... to here
task8();
task9();
task10();
}
}
};
Because when task3() .... task7() deal with something that would expire while the Thread is paused there must be a way to let the Thread finish task7() until it pauses.
I hope you can help me with my issue.
Thanks in advance,
Flo
So given this is your Thread class:
public class MyThread extends Thread
{
First, you need an lock object. This object can be everything, and if you use an existing object this takes less memory. Also define a flag if the bot should be paused.
public Object lock = this;
public boolean pause = false;
Now, define a pause() and continue() method for the thread. This sets the pause flag.
public void pause ()
{
pause = true;
}
public void continue ()
{
pause = false;
Here you need to wake up the thread. Note the synchronized on the lock object so that you don't get an IllegalMonitorStateException.
synchronized (lock)
{
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
No, define a method that automatically pauses the thread when it should be paused. You might call this at every moment when the thread can be paused.
private void pauseThread ()
{
synchronized (lock)
{
if (pause)
lock.wait(); // Note that this can cause an InterruptedException
}
}
Now, you can define your thread in the run() method:
public void run ()
{
task1();
task2();
pauseThread();
task3();
task4();
task5();
task6();
task7();
pauseThread();
task8();
task9();
task10();
}
}
Is there a way to wait for all Runnables submitted to the SWT UI Thread via asyncExec(...) to finish?
Background:
I have a long-running operation, which among other things is triggering events that in turn submit Runnables to the SWT UI thread via the asyncExec(...) instance method of Display.
The progress of the long-running operation is shown in a ProgressMonitorDialog, and I would like to close the dialog only after the UI thread has finished executing the Runnables.
Changing the calls from asyncExec(...) to syncExec(...) is not an option, as the latter is not desired when the events are triggered from other contexts.
org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch() will process an event from the event queue and return false if there are no more events to process. But you probably don't want to use this as it processes an event.
asyncExec(*) is a FIFO queue (although OS graphics events supersede the asyncExecs), so you could do most of your long-running op processing and then place a final asyncExec in the queue:
final boolean[] done = new boolean[1];
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
done[0] = true;
}
};
// now wait for the event somehow. The brute force method:
while (!done[0]) {
Thread.sleep(200);
}
In theory, all of the other asyncExecs spawned from your long running op will be finished by the time you get to the last one.
EDIT: potential other option
Create your own org.eclipse.core.runtime.jobs.Job and then join() it at the end:
public static class RefCountJob extends Job {
public RefCountJob() {
super("REF_COUNT");
}
int count = 0;
public void increment() {
count++;
}
public void decrement() {
count--;
}
#Override
protected IStatus run(IProgressMonitor monitor) {
monitor.beginTask("WAITING", IProgressMonitor.UNKNOWN);
while (count > 0) {
Thread.sleep(200);
monitor.worked(1);
}
monitor.done();
return Status.OK_STATUS;
}
}
To use it, increment() it every time you are going to fire off events, and have them decrement it when they're done (You have to make sure they decrement it no matter what exception is thrown :-)
RefCountJob ref = new RefCountJob();
// ... do stuff, everybody increments and decrements ref
ref.increment();
// ... do more stuff
ref.increment();
// at the end of your long-running job
ref.schedule();
ref.join();
Thanks, I ended up with the following. I think it is a pretty clean solution. By the way I would upvote your answer if I had enough reputation for that :)
public class SWTThreadingUtils
{
public static void waitForAsyncExecsToFinish(Display display)
{
Object waitObj = new Object();
display.asyncExec(new DummyRunnable(waitObj));
synchronized (waitObj)
{
try {
waitObj.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
private static class DummyRunnable implements Runnable
{
private Object waitObj;
public DummyRunnable(Object waitObj)
{
this.waitObj = waitObj;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
synchronized (waitObj)
{
waitObj.notify();
}
}
}
}