We Keep Coding

How to terminate(or abort) a timetask immediately

I want to terminate(or abort) a task immediately when it is running, not to wait its ending. I search in JDK, the Timer class and the TimerTask class not satisfied, their cancel method is not proper for me, for the task will contiue to execute util it finish, but I want to stop it immediately.
What should I do? I serach for Spring and Quartz, but no good idea...

This is not something that is recommended to do in a multi threaded environment as it can break your code in all sorts of ways. For example imagine you are half way through changing something and suddenly your thread gets killed leaving it in a half-modified state. Because it is not recommended no easy way is provided to do it.
The correct way to do this is to use a Thread and interrupt it.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/interrupt.html
Inside your Thread code you can check isInterrupted() at times where it would be appropriate to abort and abort, but the abort is controlled by the running thread which is the only thing that knows when it is safe to do so.
The ScheduledExecutorService also allows you to work with a ScheduledFuture and cancel that, which then works in the same way as interrupting the thread does.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html#cancel(boolean)

Java Threads, join() taking too long?

So I have some code, I am creating 6 threads, in my main thread, that run some code. I start the threads. I then call join() on the threads, so that the main thread waits for them all to die before continuing with execution.
Now, I am using some really basic and most likely inaccurate way to measure how long my code takes to run. Just calls to get the system time at the start, the end, and then print the difference.
Lets say it is taking, for example, around 500ms to run all of my code.
I decided to remove the calls to join() for each thread, and instead I just told my main thread to sleep for 20ms. This resulted in my code finishing in around 200ms, and the main thread managed to continue with execution with the proper data from the worker threads - i.e. the 6 worker threads must have finished in that 20ms wait.
THEREFORE, why is it taking so much longer when I use .join on each worker thread? Naturally, I cannot keep the call in the main method to sleep(20), and would rather use something like join()'s

The problem with multi-threaded bugs is you can appear to be working when it is not working reliably. It is possible your threads are doing something you don't need at the end, or you joining thread doesn't use the results right away. In any case, I suggest you wait for the result correctly.
BTW I would use an ExecutorService as this allows you to recycle your threads and wait for just the results you need in the form of a Future<MyResult> note this also captures and Exception/Error thrown as well.

It is also possible that your code is simply not getting finished if you take out the joins. If your main function exits without joining on all of its threads, then it is possible some are getting set as daemon threads via setDaemon(), which would stop the program cleanup from waiting on them.
Do you own all the code involved?

Thread Interrupt in java

I have the following questions, if I interrupt a thread in java, a process that is running 15 minutes, it will stop the process, stop the methods or will finish this process,and not allow others continue in line?
I have a "thread" that will call a method that will do a comparison based "access" and "postgres" after it will insert in postgres, if I want to stop the thread that called this action, she will succeed the stop the process, or wait they finish?

It will not stop the thread unless the methods executing in it are willing to terminate when they receive the "interrupt" signal. Methods that throw InterruptedException usually fall into this category. Of course, all methods in the call chain need to cooperate in one way or another.
If your code does not call "interruptable" methods or has sections that don't call them for long periods, then make them check flag Thread.isInterrupted() periodically, and terminate clean and gracefully if it ever becomes true. Same thing if you ever receive (and catch, which you should) InterruptedExceptions.
Your question can be improved, though, if your intent is more specific. I was about to explain how the "thread interrupt" protocol works, but perhaps this is not what you are looking for.

When you "interrupt" a thread, it does one of three things (which are probably the same thing behind the scenes):
If the thread is currently waiting, sleeping, or joining another thread, the interrupt will cause an InterruptedException to be thrown in the target thread.
If the thread is blocked waiting on "interruptible I/O" (that is, operations on an implementation of InterruptibleChannel), a ClosedByInterruptException will be thrown.
If it's not doing one of those things, then a flag will be set on the thread. The thread can check that flag by calling Thread.interrupted() (which will immediately reset the flag)...but if it doesn't, the next call to any_object.wait(), Thread.sleep(), or any_thread.join(), and perhaps certain other blocking methods, will throw an exception.
All these exceptions, of course, are checked exceptions...which almost invariably means that there will be an exception handler nearby (which, unless the code was designed to be interruptible, will typically just ignore the exception and try the operation again). And if the thread never waits, and never checks the interrupt flag, then interrupting it won't do much.
Also, if the thread is currently waiting on something outside the control of the JVM, the interrupt might not have any effect. On some platforms (Windows comes to mind), Java has a hard time interrupting native code.
All those caveats can be summed up as: If what you want is to kill off an unruly thread, this probably isn't the way to do it. Truth is, there isn't a decent way to kill a thread without leaving your process in a potentially wacky state. What you typically want in such cases is a separate process you can kill if it gets out of hand.

From the source:-
An interrupt is an indication to a thread that it should stop what it
is doing and do something else. It's up to the programmer to decide
exactly how a thread responds to an interrupt, but it is very common
for the thread to terminate. This is the usage emphasized in this
lesson. A thread sends an interrupt by invoking interrupt on the
Thread object for the thread to be interrupted. For the interrupt
mechanism to work correctly, the interrupted thread must support its
own interruption.

Who is calling the Java Thread interrupt() method if I'm not?

I've read and re-read Java Concurrency in Practice, I've read several threads here on the subject, I've read the IBM article Dealing with InterruptedException and yet there's something I'm simply not grasping which I think can be broken down into two questions:
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself, what can trigger an InterruptedException?
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself using interrupt() (say because I'm using other means to cancel my working threads, like poison pills and while (!cancelled) style loop [as both explained in JCIP]), what does an InterruptedException then mean? What am I supposed to do upon catching one? Shutdown my app?

The Thread interrupt mechanism is the preferred way to get a (cooperating) thread to respond a request to stop what it is doing. Any thread (including the thread itself I think) could call interrupt() on a Thread.
In practice, the normal use-cases for interrupt() involve some kind of framework or manager telling some worker thread to stop what they are doing. If the worker thread is "interrupt aware" it will notice that it has been interrupted via an exception, or by periodically checking its interrupted flag. On noticing that it has been interrupted, a well-behaved thread would abandon what it is doing and end itself.
Assuming the above use-case, your code is likely to be interrupted if it is run within a Java framework or from some worker thread. And when it is interrupted, your code should abandon what it is doing and cause itself to end by the most appropriate means. Depending on how your code was called, this might be done by returning or by throwing some appropriate exception. But it probably should not call System.exit(). (Your application does not necessarily know why it was interrupted, and it certainly does not know if there are other threads that need to be interrupted by the framework.)
On the other hand, if your code is not designed to run under the control of some framework, you could argue that the InterruptedException is an unexpected exception; i.e. a bug. In that case, you should treat the exception as you would other bugs; e.g. wrap it in an unchecked exception, and catch and log it at the same point you deal with other unexpected unchecked exceptions. (Alternatively, your application could simply ignore the interrupt and continue doing what it was doing.)
1) If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself, what can trigger an InterruptedException?
One example is if your Runnable objects are executed using an ExecutorService and shutdownNow() is called on the service. And in theory, any 3rd-party thread pool or thread management framework could legitimately do something like this.
2) If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself using interrupt() ... what does an InterruptedException then mean? What am I supposed to do upon catching one? Shutdown my app?
You need analyze the codebase to figure out what is making the interrupt() calls and why. Once you have figured that out, you can work out what >>your<< part of the app needs to do.
Until you know why InterruptedException is being thrown, I would advise treating it as a hard error; e.g. print a stacktrace to the log file and shut down the app. (Obviously, that's not always the right answer ... but the point is that this is "a bug", and it needs to be brought to the attention of the developer / maintainer.)
3) How do I find out who / what is calling interrupt()?
There is no good answer to this. The best I can suggest is to set a breakpoint on the Thread.interrupt() and look at the call stack.

If you decide to integrate your code with other libraries, they can call interrupt() on your code. e.g. if you decide in the future to execute your code within an ExecutorService, then that may force a shutdown via interrupt().
To put it briefly, I would consider not just where your code is running now, but in what context it may run in the future. e.g. are you going to put it in a library ? A container ? How will other people use it ? Are you going to reuse it ?

As others have pointed out, interrupting a thread (actually, interrupting a blocking call) is usually used for purposes of exiting cleanly or cancelling an ongoing activity.
However, you should not treat an InterruptedException alone as a "quit command". Instead, you should think of interrupts as a means to control the running status of threads, much in the same way as Object.notify() does. In the same way that you'd check the current state after waking up from a call to Object.wait() (you don't assume that the wakeup means your wait condition has been satisfied), after being nudged with an interrupt you should check why you were interrupted. There is usually a way to do this. For example, java.util.concurrent.FutureTask has an isCancelled() method.
Code sample:
public void run() {
....
try {
.... // Calls that may block.
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
if (!running) { // Add preferred synchronization here.
return; // Explicit flag says we should stop running.
}
// We were interrupted, but the flag says we're still running.
// It would be wrong to always exit here. The interrupt 'nudge'
// could mean something completely different. For example, it
// could be that the thread was blocking on a read from a particular
// file, and now we should read from a different file.
// Interrupt != quit (not necessarily).
}
....
}
public void stop() {
running = false; // Add preferred synchronization here.
myThread.interrupt();
}

The problem with the question is "I". "I" usually refers to a single instance of a class. I mean by that, that any particular piece of low-level code (class) should not rely upon the implementation of the entire system. Having said that you do have make some "architectural" decisions (like what platform to run on).
Possible unexpected interrupts coming from the JRE are canceled tasks in java.util.concurrent and shutting down applets.
Handling of thread interrupts is usually written incorrectly. Therefore, I suggest the architectural decision to avoid causing interrupts where possible. However, code handling interrupts should always be written correctly. Can't take interrupts out of the platform now.

You could learn this by creating your own thread class (extending java.lang.Thread) and overriding interrupt() method, in which you record the stacktrace into, say, a String field, and then transfer to super.interrupt().
public class MyThread extends Thread {
public volatile String interruptStacktrace; // Temporary field for debugging purpose.
#Override
public void interrupt() {
interruptStacktrace = dumpStack(); // You implement it somehow...
super.interrupt();
}
}

As already mentioned, another library can interrupt your threads. Even if the library doesn't have explicit access to the threads from your code, they can still get the list of threads that are running and interrupt them that way with the following method.

I think I understand why you are a bit confused about interruption. Please consider my answers in line:
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself, what can trigger an InterruptedException?
Firstly you may interrupt other threads; I know that in JCiP it is mentioned that you should never interrupt threads you do not own; however, this statement has to be properly understood. What it means is that your code which might be running in any arbitrary thread should not handle interruption because since it is not the owner of the thread it has no clue of its interruption policy. So you may request interruption on other threads, but let its owner take the course of interruption action; it has the interruption policy encapsulated within it, not your task code; at least be courteous to set the interruption flag!
There are many ways why there could be interruptions still, may be timeouts, JVM interrupts etc.
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself using interrupt() (say because I'm using other means to cancel my working threads, like poison pills and while (!cancelled) style loop [as both explained in JCIP]), what does an InterruptedException then mean? What am I supposed to do upon catching one? Shutdown my app?
You need to be very careful here; if you own the thread which threw InterruptedException (IE), then you know what to do upon catching it, say you may shutdown your app/service or you may replace this killed thread with a new one! However, if you do not own the thread then upon catching IE either rethrow it higher up the call stack or after doing something (may be logging), reset the interrupted status so that the code which owns this thread, when control reaches it, may learn that the thread was interrupted and hence take actions as it will since only it knows the interruption policy.
Hope this helped.

The InterruptedException says that a routine may be interrupted, but not necessarily that it will be.
If you don't expect the interrupt then you should treat it as you might any other unexpected exception. If it's in a critical section where an unexpected exception could have heinous consequences, it might be best to try and clean up resources and gracefully shutdown (because getting the interrupt signals that your well-engineered application that doesn't rely on interrupts is being used in a way it wasn't designed, and so there must be something wrong). Alternatively, if the code in question is something non-critical or trivial, you might want to ignore (or log) the interrupt and keep going.

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.