I've made two apps designed to run concurrently (I do not want to combine them), and one reads from a certain file and the other writes to it. When one or the other are running no errors, however if they are both running a get an access is denied error.
Relevant code of the first:
class MakeImage implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
File file = new File("C:/Users/jeremy/Desktop/New folder (3)/test.png");
while (true) {
try{
//make image
if(image!=null)
{
file.createNewFile();
ImageIO.write(image, "png", file);
hello.repaint();}}
catch(Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Relevant code of the second:
BufferedImage image = null;
try {
// Read from a file
image = ImageIO.read(new File("C:/Users/jeremy/Desktop/New folder (3)/test.png"));
}
catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
if(image!=null)
{
ByteArrayOutputStream baos = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
ImageIO.write( image, "png", baos );
baos.flush();
byte[] imageInByte = baos.toByteArray();
baos.close();
returns=Base64.encodeBase64String(imageInByte);
}
I looked at this: Java: how to handle two process trying to modify the same file, but that is when both are writting to the file where here only one is. I tried the retry later method as suggested in the former's answer without any luck. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Unless you use OS level file locking of some sort and check for the locks you're not going to be able to reliably do this very easily. A fairly reliable way to manage this would be to use another file in the directory as a semaphore, "touch" it when you're writing or reading and remove it when you're done. Check for the existence of the semaphore before accessing the file. Otherwise you will need to use a database of some sort to store the file lock (guaranteed consistency) and check for it there.
That said, you really should just combine this into 1 program.
Try RandomAccessFile.
This is a useful but very dangerous feature. It goes like this "if you create different instances of RandomAccessFile for a same file you can concurrently write to the different parts of the file."
You can create multiple threads pointing to different parts of the file using seek method and multiple threads can update the file at the same time. Seek allow you to move to any part of the file even if it doesn't exist (after EOF), hence you can move to any location in the newly created file and write bytes on that location. You can open multiple instances of the same file and seek to different locations and write to multiple locations at the same time.
Use synchronized on the method that modify the file.
Edited:
As per the Defination of a Thread safe class, its this way.. " A class is said to be thread safe, which it works correctly in the presence of the underlying OS interleaving and scheduling with NO means of synchronization mechanism from the client side".
I believe there is a File which is to be accessed on to a different machine, so there must be some client-server mechanism, if its there.. then Let the Server side have the synchronization mechanism, and then it doesnt matters how many client access it...
If not, synchronized is more than enough........
Related
I need to write a custom batch File renamer. I've got the bulk of it done except I can't figure out how to check if a file is already open. I'm just using the java.io.File package and there is a canWrite() method but that doesn't seem to test if the file is in use by another program. Any ideas on how I can make this work?
Using the Apache Commons IO library...
boolean isFileUnlocked = false;
try {
org.apache.commons.io.FileUtils.touch(yourFile);
isFileUnlocked = true;
} catch (IOException e) {
isFileUnlocked = false;
}
if(isFileUnlocked){
// Do stuff you need to do with a file that is NOT locked.
} else {
// Do stuff you need to do with a file that IS locked
}
(The Q&A is about how to deal with Windows "open file" locks ... not how implement this kind of locking portably.)
This whole issue is fraught with portability issues and race conditions:
You could try to use FileLock, but it is not necessarily supported for your OS and/or filesystem.
It appears that on Windows you may be unable to use FileLock if another application has opened the file in a particular way.
Even if you did manage to use FileLock or something else, you've still got the problem that something may come in and open the file between you testing the file and doing the rename.
A simpler though non-portable solution is to just try the rename (or whatever it is you are trying to do) and diagnose the return value and / or any Java exceptions that arise due to opened files.
Notes:
If you use the Files API instead of the File API you will get more information in the event of a failure.
On systems (e.g. Linux) where you are allowed to rename a locked or open file, you won't get any failure result or exceptions. The operation will just succeed. However, on such systems you generally don't need to worry if a file is already open, since the OS doesn't lock files on open.
// TO CHECK WHETHER A FILE IS OPENED
// OR NOT (not for .txt files)
// the file we want to check
String fileName = "C:\\Text.xlsx";
File file = new File(fileName);
// try to rename the file with the same name
File sameFileName = new File(fileName);
if(file.renameTo(sameFileName)){
// if the file is renamed
System.out.println("file is closed");
}else{
// if the file didnt accept the renaming operation
System.out.println("file is opened");
}
On Windows I found the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/13706972/3014879 using
fileIsLocked = !file.renameTo(file)
most useful, as it avoids false positives when processing write protected (or readonly) files.
org.apache.commons.io.FileUtils.touch(yourFile) doesn't check if your file is open or not. Instead, it changes the timestamp of the file to the current time.
I used IOException and it works just fine:
try
{
String filePath = "C:\sheet.xlsx";
FileWriter fw = new FileWriter(filePath );
}
catch (IOException e)
{
System.out.println("File is open");
}
I don't think you'll ever get a definitive solution for this, the operating system isn't necessarily going to tell you if the file is open or not.
You might get some mileage out of java.nio.channels.FileLock, although the javadoc is loaded with caveats.
Hi I really hope this helps.
I tried all the options before and none really work on Windows. The only think that helped me accomplish this was trying to move the file. Event to the same place under an ATOMIC_MOVE. If the file is being written by another program or Java thread, this definitely will produce an Exception.
try{
Files.move(Paths.get(currentFile.getPath()),
Paths.get(currentFile.getPath()), StandardCopyOption.ATOMIC_MOVE);
// DO YOUR STUFF HERE SINCE IT IS NOT BEING WRITTEN BY ANOTHER PROGRAM
} catch (Exception e){
// DO NOT WRITE THEN SINCE THE FILE IS BEING WRITTEN BY ANOTHER PROGRAM
}
If file is in use FileOutputStream fileOutputStream = new FileOutputStream(file); returns java.io.FileNotFoundException with 'The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process' in the exception message.
I'm trying to make an applet that reads a file on the local file system (the users computer) at a very frequent interval (several times a second), then makes the contents of the file available to the web page via javascript.
The file the applet needs to read is updated at a high frequency by a program on the user's computer. What I'm concerned about is what might happen if the applet reads data from the file when the file is in the middle of being updated.
I don't know how likely this is, but if it is a valid concern is there a way to make sure the file is not currently being written to before reading it?
I'm not positive about this, but you could try java.io.FileInputStream, or some other option from that package.
Also, this question may be a duplicate. This might answer your question:
How do I use Java to read from a file that is actively being written?
reading a file while it's being written
Read a file while it's being written
Reading data from a File while it is being written to
its very monster to make such a disk access, any way try Sockets if you can or if again you sits back try to lock file in both ends if the one of the locking fails then make sure that other is locking ,make up this to your use
File file = new File(fileName);
FileChannel channel = new RandomAccessFile(file, "rw").getChannel();
// Get an exclusive lock on the whole file
FileLock lock = channel.lock();
try {
lock = channel.tryLock();
// Ok. You get the lock
} catch (OverlappingFileLockException e) {
// File is open by other end
} finally {
lock.release();
}
I'm writing an application (for educational purposes), which needs to use database management system (I wrote my own extremely primitive DBMS, it is part of the task). And I want to ensure that at any time my application is running contents of all tables are correct. For that purposes I wrote method, which looks through each file and make necessary checks. The problem is that I want to call this method only once, when application starts and deny access to files to ensure that nobody changed their contents while my program is working.
I use the following approach. When application starts, I initialize InputStreamReader and OutputStreamWriter, store them and close them only when my application is terminated.
Part of initialization method:
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(file);
FileOutputStream fos = new FileOutputStream(file, true);
InputStreamReader isr = new InputStreamReader(fis, "UTF-8");
OutputStreamWriter osw = new OutputStreamWriter(fos, "UTF-8");
this.tables.get(table).put("fis", fis);
this.tables.get(table).put("fos", fos);
this.tables.get(table).put("isr", isr);
this.tables.get(table).put("osw", osw);
Close method:
try {
for(Map<String, Object> table_map: tables.values()) {
OutputStreamWriter osw = (OutputStreamWriter)table_map.get("osw");
InputStreamReader isr = (InputStreamReader)table_map.get("isr");
if (osw != null)
osw.close();
if (isr != null)
isr.close();
}
}
catch (IOException e) {
throw new DBException("Closing error");
}
Partly, this approach works, because when I try to modify any of these files using MS Notepad, I get the following error
"The process cannot access the file because it is being used by
another process"
That's what I want to see. But if I use Notepad++, I can make any modifications when my application is running, that's not what I expect to see. So what can I do to ensure that no other process can modify my files?
I tried to use FileLock, but it denies access only for my process, if I'm not mistaken.
Sorry for my poor English, hope you will understand my question anyway.
I'm not sure this is a problem worth solving. Whatever approach you take, someone with the correct privileges can probably undo your file protection and could make changes anyway.
It is best to focus on gracefully handling invalid data and otherwise trusting what is in the file. Adding some kind of integrity check (per row or table) will make it harder for someone to accidentally or maliciously change your data in a way that leaves it looking "valid".
If you read the section "Platform dependencies" in the java.nio.channels.FileLock docsyou see that:
FileLocks are not (only) for locking inside one JVM but for all processes on the computer.
File locks (note the different spelling) are greatly platform and configuration specific.
So you basicyll have to ask yourself: What protection do I really need?
If you only want to guard against running your programm multiple times on the same data you can assume that your programm "behaves well" and
use FileLocks or
use a marker lock file or
use a "dirty/locked" marker inside the file
If you want to protect against every other program then you are lost as you have seen in the Notepad++ scenario: Considering all platforms and all possible ways to circumvent locks and using Java- you have no chance.
I'm trying to delete a file that another thread within my program has previously worked with.
I'm unable to delete the file but I'm not sure how to figure out which thread may be using the file.
So how do I find out which thread is locking the file in java?
I don't have a straight answer (and I don't think there's one either, this is controlled at OS-level (native), not at JVM-level) and I also don't really see the value of the answer (you still can't close the file programmatically once you found out which thread it is), but I think you don't know yet that the inability to delete is usually caused when the file is still open. This may happen when you do not explicitly call Closeable#close() on the InputStream, OutputStream, Reader or Writer which is constructed around the File in question.
Basic demo:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
File file = new File("c:/test.txt"); // Precreate this test file first.
FileOutputStream output = new FileOutputStream(file); // This opens the file!
System.out.println(file.delete()); // false
output.close(); // This explicitly closes the file!
System.out.println(file.delete()); // true
}
In other words, ensure that throughout your entire Java IO stuff the code is properly closing the resources after use. The normal idiom is to do this in the try-with-resources statement, so that you can be certain that the resources will be freed up anyway, even in case of an IOException. E.g.
try (OutputStream output = new FileOutputStream(file)) {
// ...
}
Do it for any InputStream, OutputStream, Reader and Writer, etc whatever implements AutoCloseable, which you're opening yourself (using the new keyword).
This is technically not needed on certain implementations, such as ByteArrayOutputStream, but for the sake of clarity, just adhere the close-in-finally idiom everywhere to avoid misconceptions and refactoring-bugs.
In case you're not on Java 7 or newer yet, then use the below try-finally idiom instead.
OutputStream output = null;
try {
output = new FileOutputStream(file);
// ...
} finally {
if (output != null) try { output.close(); } catch (IOException logOrIgnore) {}
}
Hope this helps to nail down the root cause of your particular problem.
About this question, I also try to find out this answer, and ask this question and find answer:
Every time when JVM thread lock a file exclusively, also JVM lock
some Jave object, for example, I find in my case:
sun.nio.fs.NativeBuffer
sun.nio.ch.Util$BufferCache
So you need just find this locked Java object and analyzed them and
you find what thread locked your file.
I not sure that it work if file just open (without locked exclusively), but I'm sure that is work if file be locked exclusively by Thread (using java.nio.channels.FileLock, java.nio.channels.FileChannel and so on)
More info see this question
This is perhaps similar to previous posts, but I want to be specific about the use of locking on a network, rather than locally. I want to write a file to a shared location, so it may well go on a network (certainly a Windows network, maybe Mac). I want to prevent other people from reading any part of this file whilst it it being written. This will not be a highly concurrent process, and the files will be typically less than 10MB.
I've read the FileLock documentation and File documentation and am left somewhat confused, as to what is safe and what is not. I want to lock the entire file, rather than portions of it.
Can I use FileChannel.tryLock(), and it is safe on a network, or does it depend on the type of network? Will it work on a standard Windows network (if there is such a thing).
If this does not work, is the best thing to create a zero byte file or directory as a lock file, and then write out the main file. Why does that File.createNewFile() documentation say don't use this for file locking? I appreciate this is subject to race conditions, and is not ideal.
This can't be reliably done on a network file system. As long as your application is the only application that accesses the file, it's best to implement some kind of cooperative locking process (perhaps writing a lock file to the network filesystem when you open the file). The reason that is not recommended, however, is that if your process crashes or the network goes down or any other number of issues happen, your application gets into a nasty, dirty state.
You can have a empty file which is lying on the server you want to write to.
When you want to write to the server you can catch the token. Only when you have the token you should write to any file which is lying on the server.
When you are ready with you file operations or an exception was thrown you have to release the token.
The helper class can look like
private FileLock lock;
private File tokenFile;
public SLTokenLock(String serverDirectory) {
String tokenFilePath = serverDirectory + File.separator + TOKEN_FILE;
tokenFile = new File(tokenFilePath);
}
public void catchCommitToken() throws TokenException {
RandomAccessFile raf;
try {
raf = new RandomAccessFile(tokenFile, "rw"); //$NON-NLS-1$
FileChannel channel = raf.getChannel();
lock = channel.tryLock();
if (lock == null) {
throw new TokenException(CANT_CATCH_TOKEN);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new TokenException(CANT_CATCH_TOKEN, e);
}
}
public void releaseCommitToken() throws TokenException {
try {
if (lock != null && lock.isValid()) {
lock.release();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new TokenException(CANT_RELEASE_TOKEN, e);
}
}
Your operations then should look like
try {
token.catchCommitToken();
// WRITE or READ to files inside the directory
} finally {
token.releaseCommitToken();
}
I found this bug report which describes why the note about file locking was added to the File.createNewFile documentation.
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4676183
It states:
If you mark the file as deleteOnExit before invoking createNewFile but the file already exists, you run the risk of deleting a file you didn't create and dropping someone elses lock! On the other hand, if you mark the file after creating it, you lose atomicity: if the program exits before the file is marked, it won't get deleted and the lock will be "wedged".
So it looks like the main reason locking is discouraged with File.createNewFile() is that you can end up with orphaned lock files if the JVM unexpectedly terminates before you have a chance to delete it. If you can deal with orphaned lock files then it could be used as a simple locking mechanism. However, I wouldn't recommend the method suggested in the comments of the bug report as it has race conditions around read/writing the timestamp value and reclaiming the expired lock.
Rather than implementing a locking strategy which will, in all likelihood, rely on readers to adhere to your convention but will not force them to, perhaps you can write the file out to a hidden or obscurely named file where it will be effectively invisible to readers. When the write operation is complete, rename the file to the expected public name.
The downside is that hiding and/or renaming without additional IO may require you to use native OS commands, but the procedure to do so should be fairly simple and deterministic.