We Keep Coding

Why jdk Thread.stop()/suspend()/resume() functions are not safe and obsoleted? [duplicate]

Why is Thread.stop() deprecated in Java? On their website, I see the following:
Why is Thread.stop deprecated?
Because it is inherently unsafe. Stopping a thread causes it to unlock all the monitors that it has locked. (The monitors are unlocked as the ThreadDeath exception propagates up the stack.) If any of the objects previously protected by these monitors were in an inconsistent state, other threads may now view these objects in an inconsistent state. Such objects are said to be damaged. When threads operate on damaged objects, arbitrary behavior can result. This behavior may be subtle and difficult to detect, or it may be pronounced. Unlike other unchecked exceptions, ThreadDeath kills threads silently; thus, the user has no warning that his program may be corrupted. The corruption can manifest itself at any time after the actual damage occurs, even hours or days in the future.
I don't understand what they mean by "monitors". Regardless, my question is if Thread.stop() should not be called then how should a Java thread be stopped?

You asked:
My question is if theres no way to stop a thread in Java then how to stop a thread?
The Answer: In Java there's no clean, quick or reliable way to stop a thread.
Thread termination is not so straight forward. A running thread, often called by many writers as a light-weight process, has its own stack and is the master of its own destiny (well daemons are). It may own files and sockets. It may hold locks. Abrupt Termination is not always easy: Unpredictable consequences may arise if the thread is in the middle of writing to a file and is killed before it can finish writing. Or what about the monitor locks held by the thread when it is shot in the head?
Instead, Threads rely on a cooperative mechanism called Interruption. This means that Threads could only signal other threads to stop, not force them to stop.
To stop threads in Java, we rely on a co-operative mechanism called Interruption. The concept is very simple. To stop a thread, all we can do is deliver it a signal, aka interrupt it, requesting that the thread stops itself at the next available opportunity. That’s all. There is no telling what the receiver thread might do with the signal: it may not even bother to check the signal; or even worse ignore it.
Source: https://codeahoy.com/java/How-To-Stop-Threads-Safely/

When your thread handles interrupts correctly, it should be possible to instantly terminate it with use of ExecutorService interface. According to Oracle documentation, ExecutorService.shutdownNow() method, attempts to stop all actively executing tasks without waiting for their termination. There are however no guarantees beyond best-effort attempts to stop them. Here is some sample code:
class MyThread implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i < 10000000; i++)
try {
System.out.println(i + " ThreadID: " + Thread.currentThread().getId());
if (Thread.interrupted())
throw new InterruptedException();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
return;
}
}
}
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
executor.submit(new MyThread());
executor.submit(new MyThread());
executor.submit(new MyThread());
executor.shutdownNow();
Without termination each thread should print message to console 10000000 times. executor.shutdownNow() method instantly stops all three threads.

The right way is to use a join. Instead of prematurely stopping the execution of a thread, join will wait for the thread to finish execution before moving to the next statement.
Thread exampleThread = new Thread(){
public void run(){
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
//handle the exception
}
}
};
exampleThread.start();
exampleThread.join();
Here exampleThread.join() will wait until exampleThread is done executing before moving to the next statement. However, the onus of making sure that the thread does finish execution is on the programmer.
In essence there is no way to stop a thread but if you design it right you should not need to stop the thread.

The logic to stop the thread should be handled in your implementation of the thread, so that you are sure that everything goes the way you want.
For example, you could create a cancel() method that changes the state of the thread, which is checked cyclically. Like this:
class StoppableThread implements Runnable {
boolean isCancelled = false;
public void run() {
while (!isCancelled) {
System.out.println("Thread is running with all its might!");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void cancel () {
isCancelled = true;
}
}

From https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html:
Most uses of stop should be replaced by code that simply modifies some variable to indicate that the target thread should stop running. The target thread should check this variable regularly, and return from its run method in an orderly fashion if the variable indicates that it is to stop running. To ensure prompt communication of the stop-request, the variable must be volatile (or access to the variable must be synchronized
).

Threads in java are interesting because how you implement them depends on the purpose of the program you are writing.
If you do not prioritize the efficiency of your program, the thread.join() is a method that's used to wait for a Java thread to "finish" executing. Note, it's used to wait for a Java thread, not to stop a thread, and in this case we can assume a thread finishes executing after it's done running the run() method.
The reason using the thread.stop() method is dangerous, is because we do not know how the scheduler has ordered the execution of the thread, and that uncertainty is quite frustrating, but we have to accept it. Let's say you use the thread.stop method while the thread is reading objects from main memory. That may cause a huge overhead because the scheduler is now forced to sort of prioritize stopping this thread, and ignore other threads...
So this is one of the many reason why using thread.stop should be discouraged

Java: Does this pause the thread correctly?

I am curious whether it is possible to pause a thread t in Java and allow another thread to resume it later, by having t run the following pause code:
while(true) {
try {
synchronized(t) {
t.wait();
}
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
}
And then resuming the thread t by calling .interrupt() on it. However, I have read about spurious wake-ups, and so I wondered whether my code can fail, in the sense of exiting the while-loop despite no other thread calling .interrupt() on it. While this answer and this answer state that there are no spurious interrupts, and hence my code will never fail, the Java docs does not seem to address this. My question probably boils down to whether InterruptedException is ever thrown without the thread being interrupted by .interrupt(). Is there any official source or documentation that confirms this?

Summary
So, although technically this works, there are numerous reasons why this should not be done. Oracle's documentation states that interruption should only be utilized for cancellations. But if you were to do this, it will clear the interrupt status and the previously waiting thread will receive an InterruptedException.
Alternative
Lets step through a brief, simplified example.
Object obj = new Object;
synchronized (obj) {
while(condition) {
obj.wait();
}
}
A thread here will obtain the monitor.
The thread will begin to wait via wait(), and release the monitor. Always utilize wait() inside a conditional because threads are subject to get spurious wake-ups from wait(). At this point, you have achieved forcing a thread to wait.
Lets investigate how we go about returning the thread to work.
synchronized(obj) {
obj.notify();
}
The notify() will wake up the first waiting thread on the monitor. Now, if you want all waiting threads to wake up, utilize notifyAll() instead. This is the intended purpose and functionality of wait()/notify() and thus should be utilized over wait()/interrupt(). For an additional example, see this article.

How do i stop a Thread in java, I see a line over the stop? [duplicate]

Why is Thread.stop() deprecated in Java? On their website, I see the following:
Why is Thread.stop deprecated?
Because it is inherently unsafe. Stopping a thread causes it to unlock all the monitors that it has locked. (The monitors are unlocked as the ThreadDeath exception propagates up the stack.) If any of the objects previously protected by these monitors were in an inconsistent state, other threads may now view these objects in an inconsistent state. Such objects are said to be damaged. When threads operate on damaged objects, arbitrary behavior can result. This behavior may be subtle and difficult to detect, or it may be pronounced. Unlike other unchecked exceptions, ThreadDeath kills threads silently; thus, the user has no warning that his program may be corrupted. The corruption can manifest itself at any time after the actual damage occurs, even hours or days in the future.
I don't understand what they mean by "monitors". Regardless, my question is if Thread.stop() should not be called then how should a Java thread be stopped?

You asked:
My question is if theres no way to stop a thread in Java then how to stop a thread?
The Answer: In Java there's no clean, quick or reliable way to stop a thread.
Thread termination is not so straight forward. A running thread, often called by many writers as a light-weight process, has its own stack and is the master of its own destiny (well daemons are). It may own files and sockets. It may hold locks. Abrupt Termination is not always easy: Unpredictable consequences may arise if the thread is in the middle of writing to a file and is killed before it can finish writing. Or what about the monitor locks held by the thread when it is shot in the head?
Instead, Threads rely on a cooperative mechanism called Interruption. This means that Threads could only signal other threads to stop, not force them to stop.
To stop threads in Java, we rely on a co-operative mechanism called Interruption. The concept is very simple. To stop a thread, all we can do is deliver it a signal, aka interrupt it, requesting that the thread stops itself at the next available opportunity. That’s all. There is no telling what the receiver thread might do with the signal: it may not even bother to check the signal; or even worse ignore it.
Source: https://codeahoy.com/java/How-To-Stop-Threads-Safely/

When your thread handles interrupts correctly, it should be possible to instantly terminate it with use of ExecutorService interface. According to Oracle documentation, ExecutorService.shutdownNow() method, attempts to stop all actively executing tasks without waiting for their termination. There are however no guarantees beyond best-effort attempts to stop them. Here is some sample code:
class MyThread implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i < 10000000; i++)
try {
System.out.println(i + " ThreadID: " + Thread.currentThread().getId());
if (Thread.interrupted())
throw new InterruptedException();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
return;
}
}
}
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
executor.submit(new MyThread());
executor.submit(new MyThread());
executor.submit(new MyThread());
executor.shutdownNow();
Without termination each thread should print message to console 10000000 times. executor.shutdownNow() method instantly stops all three threads.

The right way is to use a join. Instead of prematurely stopping the execution of a thread, join will wait for the thread to finish execution before moving to the next statement.
Thread exampleThread = new Thread(){
public void run(){
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
//handle the exception
}
}
};
exampleThread.start();
exampleThread.join();
Here exampleThread.join() will wait until exampleThread is done executing before moving to the next statement. However, the onus of making sure that the thread does finish execution is on the programmer.
In essence there is no way to stop a thread but if you design it right you should not need to stop the thread.

The logic to stop the thread should be handled in your implementation of the thread, so that you are sure that everything goes the way you want.
For example, you could create a cancel() method that changes the state of the thread, which is checked cyclically. Like this:
class StoppableThread implements Runnable {
boolean isCancelled = false;
public void run() {
while (!isCancelled) {
System.out.println("Thread is running with all its might!");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void cancel () {
isCancelled = true;
}
}

From https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html:
Most uses of stop should be replaced by code that simply modifies some variable to indicate that the target thread should stop running. The target thread should check this variable regularly, and return from its run method in an orderly fashion if the variable indicates that it is to stop running. To ensure prompt communication of the stop-request, the variable must be volatile (or access to the variable must be synchronized
).

Threads in java are interesting because how you implement them depends on the purpose of the program you are writing.
If you do not prioritize the efficiency of your program, the thread.join() is a method that's used to wait for a Java thread to "finish" executing. Note, it's used to wait for a Java thread, not to stop a thread, and in this case we can assume a thread finishes executing after it's done running the run() method.
The reason using the thread.stop() method is dangerous, is because we do not know how the scheduler has ordered the execution of the thread, and that uncertainty is quite frustrating, but we have to accept it. Let's say you use the thread.stop method while the thread is reading objects from main memory. That may cause a huge overhead because the scheduler is now forced to sort of prioritize stopping this thread, and ignore other threads...
So this is one of the many reason why using thread.stop should be discouraged

Killing a thread with a complex subroutine. Java

As many others I have a problem killing my thread without using stop().
I have tried to use volatile on a variable with a while loop in my threads run() routine.
The problem is as far as I can see, that the while loop only checks the variable before every turn. The complex routine Im running takes a long time, and because of that the thread is not terminated immediately.
The thread I want to terminate is a routine that connects to another server and it uses a looooong time. And I want to have an abort button for this. (Terminating the thread). I'll try to explane with some code.
class MyConnectClass{
Thread conThread;
volitile boolean threadTerminator = false;
..some code with connect and abort button..
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
String btnName = e.getActionCommand();
if(btnName.equalsIgnoreCase("terminate")){
threadTerminator = true;
conThread.interrupt();
System.out.println("#INFO# USER ABORTED CURRENT OPERATION!");
}else if(btnName.equalsIgnoreCase("connectToServer")){
conThread = new Thread() {
public void run() {
while(threadTerminator == false){
doComplexConnect(); //Uses a loooong time
}
}
}
conThread.start();
}
}
}
How can I kill my "connection" thread instantly?
Thanks.

Java abandoned the stop() approach in Threads a while back because killing a Thread ungracefully caused huge problems in the JVM. From the Javadoc for stop():
Stopping a thread with Thread.stop causes it to unlock all of the monitors that it has locked (as a natural consequence of the unchecked ThreadDeath exception propagating up the stack). If any of the objects previously protected by these monitors were in an inconsistent state, the damaged objects become visible to other threads, potentially resulting in arbitrary behavior. Many uses of stop should be replaced by code that simply modifies some variable to indicate that the target thread should stop running. The target thread should check this variable regularly, and return from its run method in an orderly fashion if the variable indicates that it is to stop running. If the target thread waits for long periods (on a condition variable, for example), the interrupt method should be used to interrupt the wait.
In most cases, it is up to you to check the threadTerminator var whenever it is safe for you to terminate, and handle the thread exit gracefully. See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/concurrency/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html

If you are doing long I/O, you may be in trouble. Some I/O operations throw an InterruptedException, in which case, you can interrupt the thread, and, if you were in that I/O, that exception will be thrown more or less instantly, and you can abort and cleanup the thread. For this reason, interrupting a thread is preferable to using a special custom threadTerminator variable - it's much more standard. In you main code outside of the I/O, check for interrupted() or isInterrupted() periodically (instead of threadTerminator == false).
If you are doing I/O that doesn't throw InterruptedException, sometimes you can close the Socket or similar, and catch the IOException. And sometimes you are stuck.

Why don't you interrupt the thread and just move on, letting it hang until it finishes? The user could initiate a different action (thread) while the old thread finishes gracefully (which, from what I see you are pretty much doing already btw)
The downside of this that you have trouble when the user starts clicking "connectToServer" a lot (many threads), or when the threads fail to terminate (hanged threads). But maybe it's sufficient for your purpose?
Edit:
It would be simple to implement a mechanism that prevents spawning a new conthread unless "it's good to go" (e.g., use a semaphore).
The tricky part will be deciding whether it's good to open a new connection. You could ask the original thread (I.e. have a isalive() method), or the party you are trying to connect to. Or you could go for a timeout solution. For example, you could let conthread update a timestamp and decide it's dead if the timestamp isn't updated for 1 min etc. The most generally applicable solution would probably be the timeout solution.

How to start/stop/restart a thread in Java?

I am having a real hard time finding a way to start, stop, and restart a thread in Java.
Specifically, I have a class Task (currently implements Runnable) in a file Task.java. My main application needs to be able to START this task on a thread, STOP (kill) the thread when it needs to, and sometimes KILL & RESTART the thread...
My first attempt was with ExecutorService but I can't seem to find a way for it restart a task. When I use .shutdownnow() any future call to .execute() fails because the ExecutorService is "shutdown"...
So, how could I accomplish this?

Once a thread stops you cannot restart it. However, there is nothing stopping you from creating and starting a new thread.
Option 1: Create a new thread rather than trying to restart.
Option 2: Instead of letting the thread stop, have it wait and then when it receives notification you can allow it to do work again. This way the thread never stops and will never need to be restarted.
Edit based on comment:
To "kill" the thread you can do something like the following.
yourThread.setIsTerminating(true); // tell the thread to stop
yourThread.join(); // wait for the thread to stop

Review java.lang.Thread.
To start or restart (once a thread is stopped, you can't restart that same thread, but it doesn't matter; just create a new Thread instance):
// Create your Runnable instance
Task task = new Task(...);
// Start a thread and run your Runnable
Thread t = new Thread(task);
To stop it, have a method on your Task instance that sets a flag to tell the run method to exit; returning from run exits the thread. If your calling code needs to know the thread really has stopped before it returns, you can use join:
// Tell Task to stop
task.setStopFlag(true);
// Wait for it to do so
t.join();
Regarding restarting: Even though a Thread can't be restarted, you can reuse your Runnable instance with a new thread if it has state and such you want to keep; that comes to the same thing. Just make sure your Runnable is designed to allow multiple calls to run.

It is impossible to terminate a thread unless the code running in that thread checks for and allows termination.
You said: "Sadly I must kill/restart it ... I don't have complete control over the contents of the thread and for my situation it requires a restart"
If the contents of the thread does not allow for termination of its exectuion then you can not terminate that thread.
In your post you said: "My first attempt was with ExecutorService but I can't seem to find a way for it restart a task. When I use .shutdownnow()..."
If you look at the source of "shutdownnow" it just runs through and interrupts the currently running threads. This will not stop their execution unless the code in those threads checks to see if it has been ineterrupted and, if so, stops execution itself. So shutdownnow is probably not doing what you think.
Let me illustrate what I mean when I say that the contents of the thread must allow for that thread to be terminated:
myExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (true) {
System.out.println("running");
}
}
});
myExecutor.shutdownnow();
That thread will continue to run forever, even though shutdownnow was called, because it never checks to see if it has been terminated or not. This thread, however, will shut down:
myExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
System.out.println("running");
}
}
});
myExecutor.shutdownnow();
Since this thread checks to see whether or not it has been interrupted / shut down / terminated.
So if you want a thread that you can shut down, you need to make sure it checks to see if it has been interrupted. If you want a thread that you can "shut down" and "restart" you can make a runnable that can take new tasks as was mentioned before.
Why can you not shut down a running thread? Well I actually lied, you can call "yourThread.stop()" but why is this a bad idea? The thread could be in a synchronized (or other critical section, but we will limit ourselves to setions guarded by the syncrhonized key word here) section of code when you stop it. synch blocks are supposed to be executed in their entirity and only by one thread before being accessed by some other thread. If you stop a thread in the middle of a synch block, the protection put into place by the synch block is invalidated and your program will get into an unknown state. Developers make put stuff in synch blocks to keep things in synch, if you use threadInstance.stop() you destroy the meaning of synchronize, what the developer of that code was trying to accomplish and how the developer of that code expected his synchronized blocks to behave.

You can't restart a thread so your best option is to save the current state of the object at the time the thread was stopped and when operations need to continue on that object you can recreate that object using the saved and then start the new thread.
These two articles Swing Worker and Concurrency may help you determine the best solution for your problem.

As stated by Taylor L, you can't just "stop" a thread (by calling a simple method) due to the fact that it could leave your system in an unstable state as the external calling thread may not know what is going on inside your thread.
With this said, the best way to "stop" a thread is to have the thread keep an eye on itself and to have it know and understand when it should stop.

If your task is performing some kind of action in a loop there is a way to pause/restart processing, but I think it would have to be outside what the Thread API currently offers. If its a single shot process I am not aware of any way to suspend/restart without running into API that has been deprecated or is no longer allowed.
As for looped processes, the easiest way I could think of is that the code that spawns the Task instantiates a ReentrantLock and passes it to the task, as well as keeping a reference itself. Every time the Task enters its loop it attempts a lock on the ReentrantLock instance and when the loop completes it should unlock. You may want to encapsulate all this try/finally, making sure you let go of the lock at the end of the loop, even if an exception is thrown.
If you want to pause the task simply attempt a lock from the main code (since you kept a reference handy). What this will do is wait for the loop to complete and not let it start another iteration (since the main thread is holding a lock). To restart the thread simply unlock from the main code, this will allow the task to resume its loops.
To permanently stop the thread I would use the normal API or leave a flag in the Task and a setter for the flag (something like stopImmediately). When the loop encountered a true value for this flag it stops processing and completes the run method.

Sometimes if a Thread was started and it loaded a downside dynamic class which is processing with lots of Thread/currentThread sleep while ignoring interrupted Exception catch(es), one interrupt might not be enough to completely exit execution.
In that case, we can supply these loop-based interrupts:
while(th.isAlive()){
log.trace("Still processing Internally; Sending Interrupt;");
th.interrupt();
try {
Thread.currentThread().sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}

There's a difference between pausing a thread and stopping/killing it. If stopping for you mean killing the thread, then a restart simply means creating a new thread and launching.
There are methods for killing threads from a different thread (e.g., your spawner), but they are unsafe in general. It might be safer if your thread constantly checks some flag to see if it should continue (I assume there is some loop in your thread), and have the external "controller" change the state of that flag.
You can see a little more in:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
May I ask why you want to kill the thread and restart it? Why not just have it wait until its services are needed again? Java has synchronization mechanisms exactly for that purpose. The thread will be sleeping until the controller notifies it to continue executing.

You can start a thread like:
Thread thread=new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
//Do you task
}catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();}
}
});
thread.start();
To stop a Thread:
thread.join();//it will kill you thread
//if you want to know whether your thread is alive or dead you can use
System.out.println("Thread is "+thread.isAlive());
Its advisable to create a new thread rather than restarting it.