I have a main class in Android java project where all functions are defined. Then I have 2 other classes that extend the main class and implement Runnable.
main class: All main functions
class 2: I use all main functions and have a static variable X which I modify in file 2.
class 3: I use all main functions and have a static variable Y which I modify in file 3.
In the main class, I start 2 threads: one for Class2, and one for Class3.
When I try to call Class2.X from the main class, it is always null no matter what. I have tried volatile, synchronized(thread), getvalue(), etc. but it is not working.
What should I do to read the values of Class2.X such that it is not null from the main class?
Here is the code:
Thread t = new Thread(new Functionss(mRgbImage));
t.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Functionss_2(mRgbImage));
t2.start();
if(boolean_variable)
{
try {
Thread.sleep(30000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Bitmap final_added =addition(mRgbImage2, mRgbImage3);
mImageView.setImageBitmap(final_added);
mRgbImage2 and mRgbImage3 are the static volatile variables.
In fact, I think it is not a problem of variables because when i use an image in the main class and modify it, and then execute mImageView.setImageBitmap(initial_image) i am still getting a black screen on my android phone.
I have noted the following in the logcat:
Window already focused, ignoring focus gain of: com.android.internal.view.IInputMethodClient$Stub$Proxy#40a34d28
If I remove the threads, I don't get this error.
Any help?
I suspect that your threads are never executing the assignment statement or are assigning a different value or something. Maybe putting some log messages or debugging your application and putting a break point at the assignment would help.
If you had something like:
public class MainClass {
Class2 class2 = new Thread(new Class2());
class2.start();
class2.join();
// Class2.value will == 10 here
}
and then:
public class Class2 implements Runnable {
public static volatile int value;
public void run() {
...
this.value = 10;
...
}
}
Then after the assignment happens in Class2 then the value will have been updated. This is obviously a simple example and I suspect the Class2 thread has not actually finished in your code, but as long as the assignment has been reached then value will have been changed. Again, log messages or debugger would help here.
It would be better to have something like the following pattern:
public class Class2 implements Runnable {
private volatile int value;
public void run() {
...
this.value = 10;
...
}
public int getValue() {
return this.value;
}
}
So then MainClass can access the value from Class2 and Class3 without confusion. Notice that you still need the volatile keyword there because the value is being get/set from different threads.
Hope something here helps. If you edit your question with more details I may be able to help more.
I was using JJIL library and it turned out that
"
What steps will reproduce the problem?
Use RgbImageJ2se.toDisplay in multiiple threads simulatenous (different instances of RgbImageJ2se).
Due to the static reference to the Graphics object passed, there will be indeterminate results depending on which thread executes first.
"
Reference: http://code.google.com/p/jjil/issues/detail?id=27
I doubted it has to do with libraries because i rewrote the code with math functions instead and the output was right. it was waiting for both classes to finish and use their output to do further calcuations.
Hope this helps someone else stuck.
Related
I know this is a bit naive question but I want to understand the basic working principle behind multi-threading in java. Consider the following code and say A is executed in Main thread and it starts execution of another worker thread ,defined in class B. I want to know that can B.func1 called from A and run method of B, be executed in parallel or not?
public class A {
public static void main(String[] args) {
B obj = new B();
obj.start();
obj.func1();
}
}
public class B extends Thread {
public B() {
//constructor
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
//do somethings
}
}
public void func1() {
//do someotherthings
}
}
There is no magic behind a method call. If you call method from a thread, it is called in exactly the same thread. So since obj.func1() is called from main, it will be run in the main thread. It doesn't matter which class it belongs to or whether or not it extends Thread.
The new thread starts by executing run. Everything called from run and so on will be executed in parallel to main.
It's important to understand the difference between a thread and a Thread.
A thread is an independent execution of your code. Often when we talk about how some method or another works we say things like, "It tests the variable x, and if x is less than zero it calls the foobar method..."
Ok, but what is the "it" in that sentence? It is not the method. Methods don't do anything. A method is just a list of instructions, like the list of chores that somebody left for their housemate to perform. The list doesn't do the chores, it's the housemate that does the work (or so we might hope).
The "it" is a thread. Threads are entities in the operating system that execute methods (i.e., they do the chores).
A Thread, on the other hand, is a Java object that your program can use to create and manage new threads. Your program creates a new Thread object by doing:
thread t = new Thread(...);
[Oops! See what I just did? It's not your program, that does the work, it's your program's main thread, or maybe some other thread in your program. It's an easy thing to forget!]
Anyway, it subsequently creates the new thread by calling t.start();
Once you understand all that, then Sergey Tachenov's answer becomes obvious: Calling the methods of a Thread object really is no different from calling methods of any other kind of object.
There are multiple issues with your code. I have corrected them and added one more statement to print Thread Name in func1().
Working code:
public class A {
public static void main(String args[]){
B obj = new B();
obj.start();
obj.func1();
}
}
class B extends Thread{
public B (){
//constructor
}
public void run(){
while(true){
//do somethings
}
}
public void func1 (){
//do someotherthings
System.out.println("Thread name="+Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
output:
Thread name=main
Since you are directly calling func1() from main method (A.java) , you will get Thread name = main in output.
If you add same print statement run() method, you will get output as : Thread name=Thread-0
Looking at the Thread constructors, I see there is one that takes single string parameter. I have the below code, which is kind of useless. I would like to know, how to make a fruitful use of this constructor and make something actually run
public class ThreadTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t = new Thread("abc");
t.start();
System.out.println("Complete");
}
}
Or Is it not supposed to be used the way I demonstrated above?
I perfectly know how to write multiple threads and execute :), I am just trying to understand the correct use of this constructor? Should it only be used by calling super(name) by extending Thread and not by the way I am using it above.
The thread class in itself doesn't do all that much. You have to extend it or construct it around a runnable to make it perform a task when run. From the doc:
start(): "Causes this thread to begin execution; the Java Virtual Machine calls the run method of this thread."
run(): "If this thread was constructed using a separate Runnable run object, then that Runnable object's run method is called; otherwise, this method does nothing and returns."
Therefore constructing a new thread in your fashion and starting it does nothing. One use of the Thread(String) constructor is in subclasses:
public class Worker extends Thread{
public Worker(int numb){
super("worker-"+numb);
}
#Override
public void run(){
//Stuff this thread actually does when run
//....
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ":" + i);
}
}
To answer your second question in the comments, this is how you would write code that's executed in parallel. Consider the above class plus this main method:
public static void main(String[] args){
Worker w1 = new Worker(1);
Worker w2 = new Worker(2);
w1.start();
w2.start();
}
The run methods of w1 and w2 will be executed in parallel. The order of the print statements will vary between executions of the main method.
This particular constructor is used to specify the 'name' of a thread, which can later be used to distinguish between instances of a specific thread type.
From the official Java API documentation;
Thread
public Thread(String name)
Allocates a new Thread object. This
constructor has the same effect as Thread (null, null, name).
Parameters: name - the name of the new thread
Once you have allocated a Thread a name, you can call the getName() method on the Thread instance to return the name it was given when it was created. This can be useful for debugging or for distinguishing between instances of of the same Thread subclass type.
Extra Reading:
Official Guide - Defining and Starting a Thread
If you simply call this constructor you get a Thread which does nothing. Why? Look at the source code of java.lang.Thread. It has a private Runnable target; class variable. When you call this constructor, the target variable remains set to null (because this constructor simply sets the Thread's name).
Also, the run() method of java.lang.Thread looks like this:
public void run() {
if (target != null) {
target.run();
}
}
So it means that this run() method will do nothing as target is null.
In order to create/start a Thread which really does something useful read here:
The Java tutorial - how to run a thread?
I have a class that has the object "Card". This class keeps checking to see if the object is not null anymore. Only one other thread can update this object. Should I just do it like the code below? Use volatile?Syncronized? lock (which I dont know how to use really)? What do you recommend as easiest solution?
Class A{
public Card myCard = null;
public void keepCheck(){
while(myCard == null){
Thread.sleep(100)
}
//value updated
callAnotherMethod();
}
Another thread has following:
public void run(){
a.myCard = new Card(5);
}
What do you suggest?
You should use a proper wait event (see the Guarded Block tutorial), otherwise you run the risk of the "watching" thread seeing the reference before it sees completely initialized member fields of the Card. Also wait() will allow the thread to sleep instead of sucking up CPU in a tight while loop.
For example:
Class A {
private final Object cardMonitor = new Object();
private volatile Card myCard;
public void keepCheck () {
synchronized (cardMonitor) {
while (myCard == null) {
try {
cardMonitor.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException x) {
// either abort or ignore, your choice
}
}
}
callAnotherMethod();
}
public void run () {
synchronized (cardMonitor) {
myCard = new Card(5);
cardMonitor.notifyAll();
}
}
}
I made myCard private in the above example. I do recommend avoiding lots of public fields in a case like this, as the code could end up getting messy fast.
Also note that you do not need cardMonitor -- you could use the A itself, but having a separate monitor object lets you have finer control over synchronization.
Beware, with the above implementation, if run() is called while callAnotherMethod() is executing, it will change myCard which may break callAnotherMethod() (which you do not show). Moving callAnotherMethod() inside the synchronized block is one possible solution, but you have to decide what the appropriate strategy is there given your requirements.
The variable needs to be volatile when modifying from a different thread if you intend to poll for it, but a better solution is to use wait()/notify() or even a Semaphore to keep your other thread sleeping until myCard variable is initialized.
Looks like you have a classic producer/consumer case.
You can handle this case using wait()/notify() methods. See here for an example: How to use wait and notify in Java?
Or here, for more examples: http://www.programcreek.com/2009/02/notify-and-wait-example/
This question already has answers here:
Is this starvation?
(2 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
During our lessons in the university, we learned about Threads and used the "Busy Waiting" method for an example of a Car waiting at a TrafficLight. For this task we build three classes:
TrafficLight (implements Runnable)
Car (implements Runnable)
Main
In our Main class we start two Threads, one of Car, and one of TrafficLight. The Car has the boolean attribute hasToWait. The run() method in this class works the way, that it works through a while loop as long as hasToWait == true. To change this, we have the notifyCar() method in the Car class, which is used by the TrafficLight. The run() method in TrafficLight runs through a Thread.sleep() to simulate a certain time of waiting.
Everything works fine at my Prof's but eventually I have serious problems with it. As long as the while loop in the Car class is empty. When I put in a System.out.println() - which is not empty, it works. But if the Syso is empty, the result is no displaying of the Text of the Run method.
Also it's working when the Thread.sleep() in TrafficLight is 0. Than it works with an empty while loop.
Here is my code:
Car.java:
package trafficlight;
public class Car implements Runnable {
private boolean hasToWait = true;
public void run() {
this.crossTrafficLight();
}
public void crossTrafficLight() {
while(hasToWait){ for(int i = 0; i<20; i++){System.out.println("123");}} // Busy waiting
System.out.println("Auto fährt über Ampel");
}
public void notifyCar() {
this.hasToWait = false;
System.out.println("Test");
}
}
TrafficLight.java:
package trafficlight;
public class TrafficLight implements Runnable {
private Car car;
public TrafficLight(Car car) {
this.car = car;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
this.car.notifyCar();
}
}
Main.java:
package trafficlight;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args){
Car car = new Car();
TrafficLight tl = new TrafficLight(car);
new Thread(car).start();
new Thread(tl).start();
}
}
Where is the problem? Why does it work at my profs but not at my computer? I got the code 1:1 in my Eclipse Juno, using JRE 1.7
In addition to everything said in this other answer (just substitute your hasToWait for finished in that answer), the reason why the code starts working when you add a println is as follows:
println is a synchronized method;
you call it in both threads;
this creates a happens-before relationship between the two threads;
therefore the write to the boolean flag becomes visible to the child thread.
You could say that it starts working mostly by accident: you are piggybacking on the synchronization going on in println.
The real problem with your code is the instance field hasToWait. This field is being used by two threads. The car thread reads the value, and the traffic light thread updates the value after some time.
The access to this field must be synchronized in some way.
There are two ways to do this:
Use the synchronized keyword. Either by using a synchronized block at all places, where it is read or written, or - better - write a synchronized getter and a synchronized setter, then use the getter and the setter inside the Car class.
Use the volatile keyword. Just declare your field as volatile. This keyword exists for exactly that case. More information on volatile can be found in Oracle's Java Tutorials.
After reading the article about atomic access (see link above), it should be clear that option 2 (declaring volatile) is the far better option - for this use case.
Now to the difference you see between your computer and your professor's computer: As long as you are using a single-core-processor, you will see updates on an instance field in other threads as though they were synchronized, because the CPU does not have to synchronize these values in the other cores' cache areas. If you use a multi-core-processor, then the JVM is able to run threads on several cores. That means, that these cores have to synchronize values, and the volatile mechanism is exactly designed for that.
As an addition to my current application, I need to create a separate thread which will periodically do some processing
I've create a new class to do all this, and this class will be loaded on startup of my application.
This is what I have so far :
public class PeriodicChecker extends Thread
{
static
{
Thread t = new Thread(new PeriodicChecker());
while(true)
{
t.run();
try
{
Thread.sleep(5000l);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
/**
* Private constructor to prevent instantiation
*/
private PeriodicChecker()
{
}
#Override
public void run()
{
System.out.println("Thread is doing something");
// Actual business logic here, that is repeated
}
}
I want to make constructor private to prevent other people from attempting to instantiate this class accidentally. How can I achieve this?
Also, is there anything bad about my implementation of such requirements? I'm only creating one thread which will run then sleep, have I missed anything obvious? I haven't worked with threads before
Java offers ScheduledExecutorService to schedule and run periodic tasks or tasks with delay. It should provide all the features you need. Timer is another class that offers similar functionalities, but I would recommend the ScheduledExecutorService over Timer for its flexibility of configuration and better error management.
You have some conceptual erros in your code... for example:
You should call start() and not run(), because you are running the method sequentially and not simultaneously.
You can call start() only once, not once in each loop iteration. After that, the thread is in state TERMINATED, you should create a new thread to run it again
You should not create the thread in the static block, it is a bad practice, and maybe the Thread is running before you want it to run.
You should read some examples about thread, it is a little difficult to unserstand at the beginning, and you can have undesired effects very easily.
Here is a little example, that may do something similar to that you want:
public class PeriodicChecker extends Thread
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while(true) {
System.out.println("Thread is doing something");
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
}
}
public OtherClass {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Thread t = new PeriodicChecker();
t.start();
}
}
If you want that none can create a new Thread, you could create a singleton, so you will be sure that none is creating more threads.
I'd recommend you to consider Timer class - it provides functionality for periodic tasks execution.
Also you may take a look at "Timer & TimerTask versus Thread + sleep in Java" question discussion - there you can find some arguments and examples.
First of all to answer your specific question, you have already achieved your objective. You have declared your constructor to be private meaning no external class can call it like new PeriodicChecker().
Looking at your code however, there are a number of other problems:
Firstly, you are creating an instance of your class within its own static constructor. The purpose of a static constructor is to initialise any static state that your class may have, which instances of your class may then depend on. By creating an instance of the class within the static constructor, all of these guarantees go out the window.
Secondly, I don't think your thread is going to behave in the way you expect it to behave, primarily because you don't actually start another thread :). If you intend to start a new thread, you need to call the start() method on that thread object. Calling run() as you do does not actually create a new thread, but simply runs the run() method in the current thread.
Nowadays when you want to create a new thread to do something, the reccomended way of achieving this is to not extend Thread, but instead implement the Runnable interface. This allows you to decouple the mechanism of the thread, from the behaviour you intend to run.
Based on your requirements, I would suggest doing away with a top-level class like this, and instead create either a private inner class within your application start-up code, or even go for an anonymous inner class:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
System.out.println("Thread is doing something");
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
}
}).start();
}
}
It is almost never right to extend Thread. If you ever find yourself doing this, step back, take a look and ask yourself if you really need to change the way the Thread class works.
Almost all occurances where I see extends Thread the job would be better done implementing the Runnable interface or using some form of Timer.