We Keep Coding

How can I access a variable from another method in Java?

So, I am trying to access my variable from timer task, however I can't seem to make it work. I read about global variables but wasn't quite sure on how to use it. I am new to Java so any suggestion would be extremely helpful, thank you!
public boolean verifyAnswer(String userAnswer) {
String correctAnswer = this.questions.get(currentQuestionIndex).correctAnswerText;
if(userAnswer.equals(correctAnswer)) {
timer.pauseTimer();
Timer t = new Timer();
TimerTask tt = new TimerTask() {
//This is the variable I want to use
int score = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(++score);
if (score == 30) {
t.cancel();
}
};
};
t.scheduleAtFixedRate(tt, 0, 1000);
TimerPanel timer2 = new TimerPanel();
long total = 0;
//Here is where I try to use it
long equation = TimerTask.score / 30000;

The simplest workaround would be to use a single-element array or holder object to store the score as anonymous inner classes cannot modify the value of outer variables.
int[] score = {0};
TimerTask tt = new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(++score[0]);
if (score[0] == 30) {
t.cancel();
}
};
};
//...
long equation = score[0] / 30000;

a global variable might indeed help. It is just a variable declared outside the methods but inside the class. Then it is visible in the entire class - and also from outside if you make it public.
of you are in a multithreading environment, please access it in a synchronized way, like so
public class Test {
public volatile int global_variable = 42;
public synchronized int getGlobal_variable() {
return global_variable;
}
public synchronized void setGlobal_variable(int global_variable) {
this.global_variable = global_variable;
}
public void update() {
setGlobal_variable(getGlobal_variable() + 150);
}
public Test() {
try {
while (true) {
System.out.println(getGlobal_variable());
update();
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO: handle exception
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Test();
}
}
note that I have added the volatile just to be on the safe side.
it depends upon your application whether you really need that.
if you are not concerned with multithreading, just move the declaration of score outside your method and you will be fine :-)

Java Threads: How to print alphabets and numbers using two threads one at a time

I am trying to work around with threads in java. Though I understand that threads output are unpredictable, However was wondering if there is a way to do that.
I have to implement two threads, one prints alphabets(a,b,c...z) and other prints numbers(1,2,3....26). Have to implement it in such a way that the output should be a,1,b,2,c,3,d,4......z,26. Below is my code but it doesn't give the desired output.
public class ThreadsExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable r = new Runnable1();
Thread t = new Thread(r);
Runnable r2 = new Runnable2();
Thread t2 = new Thread(r2);
t.start();
t2.start();
}
}
class Runnable2 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(char i='a';i<='z';i++) {
System.out.print(i+",");
}
}
}
class Runnable1 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(int i=1;i<=26;i++) {
System.out.print(i+",");
}
}
}
What tweak should I make in the code to get the desired output? How does synchronization helps here? Or is it really possible when working with Threads at all?
PS: This is not an assignment or some exercise. Its self learning.

It is possible. You need to synchronize it well.
Approach Pseudocode
query some (synchronized) state
state will tell whether nums or chars are allowed
if state allows char and caller will put chars, do it now and change state and wake up waiting threads
if not, wait
if state allows numbers and caller will put numbers, do it now and change state and wake up waiting threads
if not, wait
Java code
public class ThreadsExample {
public static ThreadsExample output = new ThreadsExample ();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable r = new Runnable1();
Thread t = new Thread(r);
Runnable r2 = new Runnable2();
Thread t2 = new Thread(r2);
t.start();
t2.start();
}
private Object syncher = new Object (); // we use an explicit synch Object, you could use annotation on methods, too. like ABHISHEK did.
// explicit allows to deal with more complex situations, especially you could have more the one locking Object
private int state = 0; // 0 allows chars, 1 allows ints
public void print (char pChar) {
synchronized (syncher) { // prevent the other print to access state
while (true) {
if (state == 0) { // char are allowed
System.out.print(pChar + ","); // print it
state = 1; // now allow ints
syncher.notify(); // wake up all waiting threads
return;
} else { // not allowed for now
try {
syncher.wait(); // wait on wake up
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
}
public void print (int pInt) {
synchronized (syncher) {
while (true) {
if (state == 1) {
System.out.print(pInt + ",");
state = 0;
syncher.notify();
return;
} else {
try {
syncher.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
}
}
class Runnable2 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(char i='a';i<='z';i++) {
ThreadsExample.output.print(i);
}
}
}
class Runnable1 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(int i=1;i<=26;i++) {
ThreadsExample.output.print(i);
}
}
}
Output
a,1,b,2,c,3,d,4,e,5,f,6,g,7,h,8,i,9,j,10,k,11,l,12,m,13,n,14,o,15,p,16,q,17,r,18,s,19,t,20,u,21,v,22,w,23,x,24,y,25,z,26,

The whole idea of threads: it represents a "stream of activity" that executes code independent of other threads.
In your case, you want that these two threads go in "lockstep". Thread A does one step, then Thread B, then A, then B.
In order to get there, the two threads need something "synchronize" on - in other words: A sends a signal to B when it has done its steps - and B has to wait for that signal. Then B does its thing, signals to A, ...
For starters, a simple boolean value would do. One thread sets it to true, the other to false (to indicate when it has made its step). Then the thread waits for the boolean to toggle again.
As you intend to learn things, I would just start experimenting from there. In case you want to take detours, look here for example. This might help as well.

HERE IS THE CODE::
You need to create 2 threads and implement wait and notify methods correctly you can also refer "Create two threads, one display odd & other even numbers" for your answer.
public class ThreadClass {
volatile int i = 1;
volatile Character c = 'a';
volatile boolean state = true;
synchronized public void printAlphabet() {
try {
while (!state) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " +c);
state = false;
c++;
notifyAll();
}
synchronized public void printNumbers() {
try {
while (state) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + i);
state = true;
i++;
notifyAll();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadClass threadClass = new ThreadClass();
Thread t1 = new Thread() {
int k = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
while (k < 26) {
threadClass.printAlphabet();
k++;
}
}
};
t1.setName("Thread1");
Thread t2 = new Thread() {
int j = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
while (j < 26) {
threadClass.printNumbers();
j++;
}
}
};
t2.setName("Thread2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}

Your threads are running at the same time. But not the way you want it, as mentioned above. You will see blocks of data from thread 1 and then a block of data from thread 2; and this is because of thread scheduling. Thread 1 is just queuing its output before thread 2.
To test this theory, increase your output to a 1000 records for example as the alphabet and 26 numbers are not as large to see this.
By doing so, you will see these 'blocks' of data. There is a way to do what you mentioned, but it is not advisable as this is not demonstrating how threads actually work but rather you forcing it to work that way.

With less Code:
class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private static int n = 1;
private static char c = 'a';
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i <= 26; i++) {
synchronized (this) {
try {
notifyAll();
if (Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("A")) {
System.out.print(c + ",");
c++;
} else {
System.out.print(n + ",");
n++;
}
if (i != 26) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class PrintAlphabetNumberJob {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
MyRunnable r = new MyRunnable();
Thread tAlphabet = new Thread(r, "A");
Thread tNumber = new Thread(r, "N");
tAlphabet.start();
Thread.sleep(100);
tNumber.start();
}
}

Access synchronized method from another thread using same instance

I've a core method in my project which I need it to be synchronized in order not to be accessed twice at the same time, and hence I have a thread which uses an instance from this class to access this method, but inside this thread I need to have a long life loop to be used to access the same method with a fixed value so I have to use another thread in order to allow the first thread to move on and complete it's duties, but for sure the method doesn't run from that second thread using the same instance used in the first thread, and somehow I can't instantiate another instance from the class as I have to use this instance exactly, so how to overcome this problem.
below is the problem translated to java:
public class ClassOne {
synchronized public void my_method(int number) {
// Do some Work
}
}
public class ClassTwo {
private void some_method() {
Thread one = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
ClassOne class_one = new ClassOne();
// DO Work
class_one.my_method(0);
run_loop(class_one);
// Complete Work
}
});
one.start();
}
boolean running = true;
private void run_loop(final ClassOne class_one) {
Thread two = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
class_one.my_method(1); // won't run
Thread.sleep(10000);
}
}
});
two.start();
}
}
Actual problem overview:
my_method --- > is to send UDP packets.
the method has to be synchronized otherwise I'll get the socket is already open exception when trying to use it more than once repeatedly.
at some point, I have to send a KeepAlive message repeatedly each 10 seconds, so, I have to launch a separate thread for that which is thread two in run_loop method.

Putting something that will compile and work. I don't see why you need this function to be synchronized. Check the output for this program...The second thread access this method only when the first thread is done accessing (unless you have missed adding some additional code).
class ClassOne {
int criticalData = 1;
synchronized public void my_method(int number) {
// Do some Work
criticalData *= 31;
System.out.println("Critical data:" + criticalData + "[" + Thread.currentThread().getName() + "]");
}
}
class ClassTwo {
boolean running = true;
public void some_method() {
Thread one = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
ClassOne class_one = new ClassOne();
// DO Work
class_one.my_method(0);
run_loop(class_one);
// Complete Work
}
});
one.start();
}
public void run_loop(final ClassOne class_one) {
Thread two = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (running) {
class_one.my_method(1); // won't run
try {
Thread.sleep(10000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
two.start();
}
}
public class StackExchangeProblem {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ClassTwo two = new ClassTwo();
two.some_method();
}
}

All threads get locked in wait() state [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Notify not getting the thread out of wait state
(3 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Basically I have to create 3 classes (2 threaded).
First one holds some cargo (has a minimum capacity (0) and a maximum (200))
Second one supplies the cargo every 500ms.
Third one takes away from cargo every 500ms.
Main program has one cargo class(1), 2 supplier classes(2) and 2 substraction classes(3). Problem I'm having is that one by one, they're falling into a wait(); state and never get out. Eventually all of them get stucked in the wait() state, with the program running, but without them actually doing anything.
First class:
public class Storage {
private int maxCapacity;
private int currentCapacity;
public Storage( int currentCapacity, int maxCapacity ) {
this.currentCapacity = currentCapacity;
this.maxCapacity = maxCapacity;
}
public int getCapacity(){ return this.currentCapacity; }
public void increase( int q ) {
this.currentCapacity += q;
System.out.println("increase" + q + ". Total: " + currentCapacity);
}
public int getMax() { return this.maxCapacity; }
public void decrease( int q ) {
this.currentCapacity -= q;
System.out.println("decrease - " + q + ". Total: " + currentCapacity);
}
}
2nd class (supplier):
public class Supplier implements Runnable {
private int capacity;
private Storage storage;
private volatile boolean run;
public Supplier( int capacity, Storage storage ) {
this.capacity = capacity;
this.storage = storage;
this.run = true;
}
public void kiss_kill() { run = !run; }
public synchronized void add() {
while(storage.getCapacity() + capacity > storage.getMax()) {
try {
System.out.println("wait - supplier");
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
storage.increase(capacity);
notifyAll();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
while(run) {
add();
Thread.yield(); //would be wait(500), but this just speeds it up
}
}
}
}
3rd class (taker/demander):
public class Taker implements Runnable {
private int capacity;
private Storage storage;
private volatile boolean run;
public Taker( int capacity, Storage storage ) {
this.capacity = capacity;
this.storage = storage;
this.run = true;
}
public void kiss_kill() { run = !run; }
public synchronized void take() {
while(storage.getCapacity() - capacity < 0) {
try {
System.out.println("wait - taker");
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
storage.decrease(capacity);
notifyAll();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
while(run) {
take();
Thread.yield(); //again, wait(500) should be instead
}
}
}
}
Main is something like this:
public class Main{
public static void main(String... args) {
Storage sk = new Storage(100, 200);
Supplier[] s = { new Supplier(10, sk), new Supplier(15, sk) };
Taker[] p = { new Taker(15, sk), new Taker(20, sk) };
Thread t[] = {
new Thread(s[0]),
new Thread(s[1]),
new Thread(p[0]),
new Thread(p[1]) };
for(Thread th : t) th.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(60000); //program should last for 60s.
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
s[0].kiss_kill(); s[1].kiss_kill(); p[0].kiss_kill(); p[1].kiss_kill();
}
}
Why doesn't notifyAll() release the wait() state of other object? What could I do to fix this?
Sorry, I know it's a long example, I hate posting too many classes like this. Thanks for reading!
I translated the code, so if you spot anything that you're unsure about that I've missed, please tell me and I'll fix it right away!

Doing concurrency is easy:
Anyone can slap synchronized on methods and synchronized () {} around blocks of code. It does not mean it is correct. And then they can continue to slap synchronized on everything until it works until it doesn't.
Doing concurrency correctly is Hard:
You should lock on the data that needs to be consistent not the methods making the changes. And you have to use the same lock instance for everything.
In this case that is the currentCapacity in Storage. That is the only thing that is shared and the only thing that needs to be consistent.
What you are doing now is having the classes lock on instances of themselves which means nothing shared is being protected because there is no shared lock.
Think about it, if you are not locking on the same exact instance which must be final of an object then what are you protecting?
Also what about code that has access to the object that needs to be consistent and does not request a lock on it. Well it just does what it wants. synchronized() {} in calling classes is not how you protect shared data from external manipulation.
Thread safe objects are NOT about the synchronized keyword:
Read up on the java.util.concurrent package it has all the things you need already. Use the correct data structure for your use case.
In this particular case if you use AtomicInteger for your counter, you do not need any error prone manual locking, no need for synchronized anywhere, it is already thread safe.
Immutable Data:
If you work with immutable data exclusively you do not need any of this silly locking semantics that are extremely error prone for even those that understand it and even more so for those that think they understand it.
Here is a working idiomatic example:
This is a good chance to learn what non-deterministic means and how to use the step debugger in your IDE to debug concurrent programs.
Q33700412.java
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import com.vertigrated.FormattedRuntimeException;
public class Q33700412
{
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final Storage s = new Storage(100);
final int ap = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
final ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(ap);
for (int i = 0; i < ap; i++)
{
es.execute(new Runnable()
{
final Random r = new Random();
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
/* this if/else block is NOT thread safe, I did this on purpose
the state can change between s.remainingCapacity() and
the call to s.increase/s.decrease.
This is ok, because the Storage object is internally consistent.
This thread might fail if this happens, this is the educational part.
*/
if (s.remainingCapacity() > 0)
{
if (r.nextBoolean()) { s.increase(r.nextInt(10)); }
else { s.decrease(10); }
System.out.format("Current Capacity is %d", s.getCurrentCapacity());
System.out.println();
}
else
{
System.out.format("Max Capacity %d Reached", s.getMaxCapacity());
System.out.println();
}
try { Thread.sleep(r.nextInt(5000)); }
catch (InterruptedException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
}
});
}
es.shutdown();
try
{
Thread.sleep(TimeUnit.MINUTES.toMillis(1));
es.shutdown();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) { System.out.println("Done!"); }
}
public static final class Storage
{
/* AtomicInteger is used so that it can be mutable and final at the same time */
private final AtomicInteger currentCapacity;
private final int maxCapacity;
public Storage(final int maxCapacity) { this(0, maxCapacity); }
public Storage(final int currentCapacity, final int maxCapacity)
{
this.currentCapacity = new AtomicInteger(currentCapacity);
this.maxCapacity = maxCapacity;
}
public int remainingCapacity() { return this.maxCapacity - this.currentCapacity.get(); }
public int getCurrentCapacity() { return this.currentCapacity.get(); }
public void increase(final int q)
{
synchronized (this.currentCapacity)
{
if (this.currentCapacity.get() < this.maxCapacity)
{
this.currentCapacity.addAndGet(q);
}
else
{
throw new FormattedRuntimeException("Max Capacity %d Exceeded!", this.maxCapacity);
}
}
}
public int getMaxCapacity() { return this.maxCapacity; }
public void decrease(final int q)
{
synchronized (this.currentCapacity)
{
if (this.currentCapacity.get() - q >= 0)
{
this.currentCapacity.addAndGet(q * -1);
}
else
{
this.currentCapacity.set(0);
}
}
}
}
}
Notes:
Limit the scope of synchronized blocks to the minimum they need to protect and lock on the object that needs to stay consistent.
The lock object must be marked final or the reference can change and you will be locking on different instances.
The more final the more correct your programs are likely to be the first time.

Jarrod Roberson gave you the "how" half of the answer. Here's the other half--the "why".
Your Supplier object's add() method waits on itself (i.e., on the supplier object), and it notifies itself.
Your Taker object's take() method waits on its self (i.e., on the taker object), and it notifies its self.
The supplier never notifies the taker, and taker never notifies the supplier.
You should do all of your synchronization on the shared object (i.e., on the Storage object.
So I should convert storage into a thread?
No, you don't want Storage to be a thread, you want it to be the lock. Instead of having your Supplier objects and your Taker objects synchronize on themselves, they should all synchronize on the shared Storage object.
E.g., do this:
public void take() {
synchronized(storage) {
while(...) {
try {
storage.wait();
} catch ...
}
...
storage.notifyAll();
}
}
Instead of this:
public synchronized void take() {
while(...) {
try {
wait();
} catch ...
}
...
notifyAll();
}
And do the same for all of your other synchronized methods.

How can I start, pause and resume my threads? (by extending thread from classes)

Essentially, what I want to do is start all my threads, pause them all, then resume them all, using the multithreading approach. I am just looking for a simple solution to this. I'm not sure if I have to use a timer or what. Right now when I run it, the threads are like being executed in random order (I guess the PC is just randomly picking which ones it wants to run at a certain time).
class ChoppingThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int j=40;j!=0;j-=10)
System.out.println("Chopping vegetables...("+j+" seconds left)");
}
}
class MixingThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int k=60;k!=0;k-=10)
System.out.println("Mixing sauces...("+k+" seconds left)");
}
}
class TenderizingThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int j=50;j!=0;j-=10)
System.out.println("Tenderizing meat...("+j+" seconds left)");
}
}
class MultiThreadTasking
{
public static void main (String [] args)
{
ChoppingThread ct = new ChoppingThread();
MixingThread mt = new MixingThread();
TenderizingThread tt = new TenderizingThread();
System.out.println("\nWelcome to the busy kitchen.");
//putting threads into ready state
ct.start();
mt.start();
tt.start();
}
}

There are probably other ways to achieve the same result, but this is the simplest I can come up with off the top of my head (I know, sad isn't it)...
Basically, this is a special Runnable with some additional management functionality.
This basically contains a state flag that indicates the state of the task and a monitor lock
public class ThreadFun {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyTask task = new MyTask();
Thread thread = new Thread(task);
thread.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
task.pauseTask();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
task.resumeTask();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
task.stopTask();
}
public enum TaskState {
Running,
Stopped,
Paused
}
public static class MyTask implements Runnable {
private static final Object PAUSED_LOCK = new Object();
private volatile TaskState state = TaskState.Running;
public void pauseTask() {
if (state == TaskState.Running) {
System.out.println("Paused...");
state = TaskState.Paused;
}
}
public void resumeTask() {
if (state == TaskState.Paused) {
state = TaskState.Running;
synchronized (PAUSED_LOCK) {
PAUSED_LOCK.notifyAll();
}
System.out.println("Resumed...");
}
}
public void stopTask() {
if (state == TaskState.Running || state == TaskState.Paused) {
state = TaskState.Stopped;
System.out.println("Stopped...");
}
}
public boolean isStopped() {
return state == TaskState.Stopped;
}
public boolean isPaused() {
return state == TaskState.Paused;
}
protected void doPause() {
synchronized (PAUSED_LOCK) {
while (isPaused()) {
try {
PAUSED_LOCK.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
int index = 0;
while (!isStopped() && index < 1000) {
try {
Thread.sleep(25);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
doPause();
index++;
System.out.println(index);
}
stopTask(); // Make sure the task is marked as begin stopped ;)
}
}
}
The main criteria is you will need to pool isStopped and doPause at appropriate points to ensure that they are begin implemented as required...

To coordinate them use a CyclicBarrier.
To launch them all at the same time use a CountDownLatch.
Google the two classes above for many examples and explanations.
To fully understand what is happening read the Java Concurrency In Practice book.

I believe you can accomplish this by using Object.wait and Thread.interrupt.
Object.wait blocks until notify is called. So
private boolean paused;
private Object waitObject;
...
public void run() {
for ... {
if (this.paused) { this.waitObject.wait(); }
...
public void pause() { this.paused = true; }
public void resume() { this.paused = false; this.waitObject.notify(); }
Then you can call pause to pause the thread.
Thread.interrupt can help with stopping.
private boolean paused;
...
public void run() {
for ... {
// interrupted() is different from interrupt()!
if (this.iterrupted()) { break; }
...
To stop it, you would call interrupt() from another thread.
This is the basic idea, but there's a lot of details to worry about here. For example, wait can throw an InterruptedException you'll need to handle. Also, wait is not guaranteed to return only after a notify. It can return randomly. Here is a pair of tutorials:
Wait: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html
Interrupt: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/interrupt.html