Does RMI handles multiple clients by itself? i.e.
is it possible to use a server function by multiple clients at the same time?
if no, how can I do such a thing?
if yes, how it works? does it make a new thread for each call? if one clients blocks the function what would happen with the next client? etc.
yes
how it works? does it make a new thread for each call? if one clients blocks the function what would happen with the next client? etc.
It creates a thread for each client connection.
If one client calls a synchronized method or one which blocks other calls, calls made by other threads will block until that call releases the resource.
It sounds like you already worked out the answers, do you have a more specific doubt?
Yes RMI does handles multiple clients, but you must make your server threadsafe , RMI will dispatch multiple threads into a single server object if multiple clients simultanuosly
make methods call on it so if your server isn't threadsafe your application will fail.
Related
I am developing a stateless Agent in Java that takes informations from one Server and transfer it to another client. It means that the agent is located between a client and a server. So I am thinking to run two threads simultaneously on the agent: one thread (thread1) runs a serverSocket and get request from client while another threads (thread2)is runnning and makes communication with the server. The problem consists in synchronizing between the two threads. I am thinking in making thread 1 asking whole the time thread 2 about a new Information. If thread 2 has nothing new, he will not answer it. What is the best way to synchronize between them. Should I use a global variable (a flag) to synchronize between them? Can I save Information when I have a stateless agent?
I think you should modify your app into async model.
Your app needs:
- an entry point to accept incoming connections -> a good example is an async servlet (or one dedicated thread).
- a ThreadPoolExecutor that provides fixed numbers of workers and a blocking queue (use this constructor).
The workflow:
Accept incomming request.
Wrapp incoming request into (Runnable) task.
Put task into blocking queue.
If ThreadPoolExecutor has a free worker starts processing the task
An advantage of such a model is that you are able to handle one request using one thread. So there is no need to manually synchronize anything.
I have a standard client/server setup.
The program I'd like to build acts a lot like a mail office(which is my Server). Multiple people (client with ObjectOutputStream) hand the office (server with the single ObjectInputStream) mail with an attached address and the office sends the mail where it is supposed to go. If possible, I'd like to have one ObjectInputStream in the server that blocks, waiting for "mail" to come in from any ObjectOutputStream, then sends the "mail" where it's supposed to go. This way I can just have one thread that is completely dedicated to receiving data and sending it.
I will have a thread for each person's client with their ObjectOutputStream, but would like to not also need a matching thread in the server to communicate with each person. I am interested in this idea because I find it excessive to build tons of threads to separately handle connections, when it's possible that a single thread will only send data once in my case.
Is this feasible? or just silly?
Use a JMS queue of Java Message Service, is the design pattern for this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Message_Service
If you have in the server app just one instance of ObjectInputStream and you have many clients then this instance needs to be shared by all threads thus you need to synchronize the access to it.
You can read more here. Hope this helps.
OR
You can have a pool of ObjectInputStream instances and using a assignment algorithm like Round Robin (doc) you can return the same instance for each x order thread for example ... this will make the flow in the server app to be more paralleled
Your question doesn't make sense. You need a separate pair of ObjectInputStream and ObjectOutputStream per Socket. You also need a Thread per Socket, unless you are prepared to put up with the manifest limitations of polling via InputStream.available(), which won't prevent your reads from blocking. If you are using Object Serialization you are already committed to blocking I/O and therefore to a thread per Socket.
I am working on creating a chat client based on UDP. The main structure is that there is a server where clients register and where clients can also request to form a connection with another client that is registered with the server. The clients are structures as follows using pseudo code:
public UDPClient() {
// Create datagram socket
// Execute RECEIVE thread using datagram socket above
// Execute SEND thread using datagram socket above
}
The idea is to have the send and receive executing on separate threads so I don't get blocked I/O on the receive. Both of these threads have loops within their run methods that allow you to continually send and receive messages. The problem I have is this. If a message comes in on the RECEIVE thread that changes how my SEND should be executing, how do I communicate this to the SEND thread? Do I have to shoot a datagram off to myself or can I communicate this in the code somehow?
Assuming boths threads have no reference to each other, create a third singleton class, which both read/send threads (classes) reference, that has a volatile member field to store the state data you want shared and which has synchronized access.
The volatile keyword, combined with synchronized access, guarantees that a change made to the field by one thread will be seen by another thread. Without this, changes may not be visible due to the java memory model specification.
Edited:
Following "separation of concerns" design guideline, it would be better to not have the read/send threads know about each other and to use a third class to orchestrate their activities/behaviour. Add methods to your read/send classes to stop(), start() etc and call these from the other class.
Using a separate class would also allow:
Behaviour control by other means, for example a "stop sending" button on an admin web page
Allowing multiple threads of each type, yet still having proper control through a central point, perhaps using a pool of such threads (without a separate class, you would have a many-to-many nightmare and lots of code that has nothing to do with the job at hand: ie ending and receiving)
Easier testing of your worker classes, because they do less and are more focused
porting/embedding them stand-alone for other uses
your SEND thread should have public (accesible) method (synchronized if possible) that you should be able to access from your RECEIVE thread. You could use this method to create a boolean flag, string message, etc. that you should always read before you .send(yourPacket); from your SEND thread.
Have a member variable in your READ method that your code can read from and change the SEND method based on that variable.
I have a Java RMI system. The situation is typical: the client invokes a method of the server.
The client has an internal timer, so if the server doesn't finish in due time (the time is specified in the client), then the client must do something else.
So, the client must wait for the server to finish its job for a specific time and in case the server didn't finish do something else (it doesn't matter what). How can I do this?
I don't care about connection timeouts and so on, assume that the server and client are connected through RMI and everything it's fine, only that the server's job can be computationally intensive and can require some time.
thanks a lot!
Make the RMI call on another thread. Have the originating thread wait a certain length of time for a response from the RMI-calling thread.
Alternatively, have the server RMI thread delegate the task to a worker thread. Return to the caller if the worker thread doesn't respond sufficiently quickly.
In general, when you want operations to timeout in Java, you are talking about one or two synchronous/asynchronous conversion layers. I've never done this with RMI, but I imagine you do something similar. Perhaps asking the participants of this discussion: ( Asynchronous Java RMI ) will be useful. Based on the points made in ( Spring Async RMI Call ), I would say you need to do the following:
Call the RMI service using separate thread(s); consider using executor service.
Expose this with a wrapper that calls through to the executor service and blocks for a finite amount of time for results; consider using Futures.
You need to set the undocumented property called (I think) sun.rmi.transport.tcp.responseTimeout at each client JVM. Value in milliseconds.
is there any way two threads within the same process can communicate without knowing anything about each other's interface ?
basically, one thread is a STOMP server, the other is a client. they're supposed to communicate in a direct manner (not via a socket) and it should be independent of the implementation so i can't assume either of the threads is waiting for messages on some common message queue.
what i'm looking for is some kind of a built-in mechanism in java that allows threads within the same process to communicate.
is there such a mechanism ? and if not, is there any other way to approach this ?
You can use a concurrent message queue where threads can post and receive messages. Instead of knowing the other's thread interface, now each thread must be able to create own messages and understand the messages of other threads.
By using a distinct interface for these messages, this is rather easy. And as a bonus, there is a wide range of queues for concurrent access available, so you can pick the queue that fits most to your scenario.
Well, you can have a third thread to act as a message board. But then you'd have to hope that the two threads can agree on a protocol before hand. It would also be rather slow.
Can you provide more details/examples? What do you mean by "communicate" exactly?
There are a few ways I can think of for doing this, shared (global) state, PipedInputStream/PipedOutputStream etc. But the details will depend on what you're trying to do.