We Keep Coding

Delay execution of code in method Java

I want to generate random number after every 2 seconds in my java (Android) program continuously for at least 10 minutes. But I just want to pause/delay execution of code in only one method and not the whole program.
I tried using Thread like this -
boolean stop = false;
int random_number = 0;
while(true){
if(stop){ //if stop becomes true, then
return; //terminate the method
}
random_number = Math.random(); //generate random number
//which is used bu some other
//part of code
try {
Thread.sleep(2000); //delay the code for 2 secs
} catch(InterruptedException ex) { //and handle the exceptions
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
However, this doesn't work as Thread.sleep stop the whole program execution instead on just stopping execution of code inside method and my whole screen becomes blank.
I also tried using Handler but it didn't work either as it doesn't stop execution of code in my method and instead just stack up.
This will demonstrate the working of it better -
while(true){
final Handler handler = new Handler();
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("After 2 secs"); //this gets printed
//later
}
}, 2000);
System.out.println("Before 2 secs"); //this gets printed first
}
So the code stacks up making it equivalent to using while loop and make it incredibly slow.
Also, since I'm developing app for Android, I'm running on Java SE 6, so I can't use scheduleAtFixedRate. Is there any other way in which I can accomplish this?
Thanks a lot!

private Timer timer;
timer = new Timer();
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
//Generate number
}
}, 2000, 2000);
//Documentation (From SDK)
/**
* Schedule a task for repeated fixed-rate execution after a specific delay
* has passed.
*
* #param task
* the task to schedule.
* #param delay
* amount of time in milliseconds before first execution.
* #param period
* amount of time in milliseconds between subsequent executions.
public void scheduleAtFixedRate(TimerTask task, long delay, long period) {
if (delay < 0 || period <= 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
scheduleImpl(task, delay, period, true);
}
and when you want to stop it
timer.cancel()

Option 1: Using threads, you might run your job off the main (UI) thread:
new Thread(new Runnable() {
// some code here ...
// This might be in a loop.
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch(InterruptedException ex) {
// Handle ...
}
}
}).start();
Then, if this new thread you'd like to modify UI (i.e. show/hide button, display something on the screen etc), remember to pass that through the UI thread, as only this one can modify the UI. You might consider using Activity.runOnUiThread() for that.
Option 2: Another, more Android-style way of approaching that issue is to use AsyncTask. It contains three callbacks which can be used to do work on- and off- the UI thread. Sketch of such a code could look like:
private class MyTask extends AsyncTask<Void, Void, Void> {
protected Void doInBackground(Void... param) {
// This method is running off the UI thread.
// Safe to stop execution here.
return null;
}
protected void onProgressUpdate(Void... progress) {
// This methid is running on the UI thread.
// Do not stop thread here, but safe to modify the UI.
}
protected void onPostExecute(Long result) {
// Also on UI thread, executed once doInBackground()
// finishes.
}
}
Option 3: Then there is also a Timer, as suggested by #Stultuske. It's less flexible then AsyncTask, but handles the interval for you.

Depending on your needs, you can still accomplish what you seek with Handler.
You don't have to create/start the Handler in a while loop(which, as you noticed, just stacks up unless you stop the loop itself, but it is a nonsense).
Just create the Handler and tell him to post delayed your Runnable instance. In the Runnable at the very end you check your conditions. If it is still OK, then post another runnable delayed, else you do nothing and the Handler will have no more executions.
final Handler handler = new Handler();
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("After 2 secs");
random_number = Math.random();
if (!stop) // should not be stopped, so we add another runnable;
{
handler.postDelayed(this, 2000);
}
}
handler.postDelayed(runnable, 2000);
The only downside is that Handler could freeze if the device is not used for a while, meaning it will start the counting back from where it left once the device screen is turned on.
It could do like 1 minute of correct work, then block at 1.4 seconds when the device is gone in sleep mode, and once it is turned on again, Handler would do the remaining 0.6 seconds.
Still, not knowing your needs you may be unaffected by this behavior and the answer may fit you.

if you want to use thread, do it like this :
Thread t = new Thread(){
public void run(){
while(true){
if(stop) break;
random_number = Math.random();
sleep(2000);
}
}
};
t.start();

Safely pausing and resuming a thread

I want to create a thread to make some HTTP requests every few seconds and is easy to pause and resume at a moments notice.
Is the way below preferred, safe and efficient?
public class Facebook extends Thread {
public boolean running = false;
public void startThread() {
running = true;
}
public void stopThread() {
running = false;
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
while(running) {
//HTTP Calls
Facebook.sleep(2000);
}
}
}
}

Your Code:
In your example, the boolean should be volatile boolean to operate properly. The other issue is if running == false your thread just burns CPU in a tight loop, and you probably would want to use object monitors or a Condition to actually wait idly for the flag to become true again.
Timer Option:
I would suggest simply creating a Timer for this. Each Timer implicitly gets its own thread, which is what you are trying to accomplish.
Then create a TimerTask (FacebookTask below is this) that performs your task and from your main control class, no explicit threads necessary, something like:
Timer t;
void resumeRequests () {
if (t == null) { // otherwise its already running
t = new Timer();
t.scheduleAtFixedRate(new FacebookTask(), 0, 2000);
}
}
void pauseRequests () {
if (t != null) { // otherwise its not running
t.cancel();
t = null;
}
}
Note that above, resumeRequests() will cause a request to happen immediately upon resume (as specified by the 0 delay parameter); you could theoretically increase the request rate if you paused and resumed repeatedly in less than 2000ms. This doesn't seem like it will be an issue to you; but an alternative implementation is to keep the timer running constantly, and have a volatile bool flag in the FacebookTask that you can set to enable/disable it (so if it's e.g. false it doesn't make the request, but continues checking every 2000ms). Pick whichever makes the most sense for you.
Other Options:
You could also use a scheduled executor service as fge mentions in comments. It has more features than a timer and is equally easy to use; they'll also scale well if you need to add more tasks in the future.
In any case there's no real reason to bother with Threads directly here; there are plenty of great tools in the JDK for this job.

The suggestion to using a Timer would work better. If you want to do the threading manually, though, then something more like this would be safer and better:
class Facebook implements Runnable {
private final Object monitor = new Object();
public boolean running = false;
public void startThread() {
synchronized (monitor) {
running = true;
monitor.notifyAll();
}
}
public void stopThread() {
synchronized (monitor) {
running = false;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
try {
synchronized (monitor) {
// Wait until somebody calls startThread()
while (!running) {
monitor.wait();
}
}
//HTTP Calls
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
break;
}
}
}
}
Note in particular:
You should generally implement Runnable instead of subclassing Thread, then use that Runnable to specify the work for a generic Thread. The work a thread performs is not the same thing as the thread itself, so this yields a better model. It's also more flexible if you want to be able to perform the same work by other means (e.g. a Timer).
You need to use some form of synchronization whenever you want two threads to exchange data (such as the state of the running instance variable). There are classes, AtomicBoolean for example, that have such synchronization built in, but sometimes there are advantages to synchronizing manually.
In the particular case that you want one thread to stop work until another thread instructs it to continue, you generally want to use Object.wait() and a corresponding Object.notify() or Object.notifyAll(), as demonstrated above. The waiting thread consumes zero CPU until it is signaled. Since you need to use manual synchronization with wait/notify anyway, there would be no additional advantage to be gained by using an AtomicBoolean.
Edited to add:
Since apparently there is some confusion about how to use this (or the original version, I guess), here's an example:
class MyClass {
static void main(String[] args) {
FaceBook fb = new FaceBook();
Thread fbThread = new Thread(fb);
fbThread.start();
/* ... do stuff ... */
// Pause the FaceBook thread:
fb.stopThread();
/* ... do more stuff ... */
// Resume the FaceBook thread:
fb.startThread();
// etc.
// When done:
fbThread.interrupt(); // else the program never exits
}
}

I Would recommend you to use a guarded blocks and attach the thread to a timer

Calling run() method of TimerTask

For the problem I am solving, I have to run a series of calls at periodic intervals. To achieve this, I have implemented TimerTask. However, I also want to notify the timertask sometimes and need to call the same methods when certain conditions are met even if the timer did not expire. My code looks similar to this.
//File TimerTaskA.java
public class TimerTaskA extends TimerTask
{
#Override
public void run()
{
processEvent1();
processEvent2();
processEvent3();
}
}
//File ProcessEventManager.java
public class ProcessEventManager
{
public TimerTaskA timerTask;
public ProcessEventManager()
{
initTimerTask();
}
public void initTimerTask()
{
Timer timer = new Timer("TimerTaskA", true);
timerTask == new TimerTaskA();
timer.schedule(timerTask , 0, 10000);
}
public void conditionalTask()
{
long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
// some condition statement. here it happens to be time in millisecs ends with 2 or 3.
if (time%10 == 2 || time%10 == 3)
timerTask.run();
}
}
In the ProcessEventManager.conditionalTask() method is it correct to call TimerTask's run() method directly to get through this situation? Is there a better way design wise to solve something like this?
The processEvent methods might be time consuming methods, and I do not want the thread running ProcessEventManager to be blocked while executing those methods. For the TimerTask to take care of running those methods in both the cases when timer expires as well as the condition in ProcessEventManager.conditionalTask is satisfied, what is the best way to do it?

Basically, yes, it is possible to do as you wrote, but a clearer way will be to call some processing method from inside the TimerTask, and when you want to perform this operation, call it directly, not through the TimerTask object.
public class TimerTaskA extends TimerTask
{
public void doCoolThings()
{
processEvent1();
processEvent2();
processEvent3();
}
#Override
public void run()
{
doCoolThings();
}
}
in the other class, when needed:
timerTask.doCoolThings();
The reason as I see it, is mainly because the purpose of run is to serve as the thread (or caller) entry point, not to do a specific task.

How can I schedule a background thread to play sounds in my app?

I have a process which should react on some events. So when playFromList() is called it plays some sound from soundpool. Then in a thread I set a flag and for 3,5 seconds it should not play any sounds.
What I got is: It plays sound and if than wait 3,5 seconds. If playFromList() is called 5 times in 3,5 seconds it still gets to SoundManager.playSound(listNr), and still is done in 17,5 seconds. And its not exactly what I wanted. I wanted method SoundManager.playSound(listNr) called only once.
public class Settings{
public static boolean flag = false;
}
public class Main{
public void playFromList(int listNr,int g){
if(!Settings.flag){
SoundManager.playSound(listNr);
if(g ==0){
mpVolume((float) 0.3);
t5sec.run();
}else{pauseMus();}
}
}
private Handler vijfSeconden = new Handler(){
public void handleMessage(Message msg){
mpVolume((float)0.8);
}
};
Thread t5sec = new Thread(){
public void run(){
if(Settings.flag == false){
Settings.flag = true;
try {
Thread.sleep(3500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Settings.flag = false;
e.printStackTrace();
}
vijfSeconden.sendEmptyMessage(0);
Settings.flag = false;
}
}
};
}

There are few problems with the code. Probably most important thing that is strange is
t5sec.run(), in Java you you should use start method on the Thread object to start new Thread. As written it will execute in the calling thread.
Second problem is absolute lack of synchronization, one way to fix that, I guess, would be to use AtomicBoolean instead of boolean in Settings.flag
Another issue is that it is quite expensive to start new thread every time. It is a bit hard to tell from the description precisely what you want to do, but if my understanding is correct you should just do something like this:
if ( (System.currentTimeInMillis() - lastTimePlayed) < 3500) {
playSound();
lastTimePlayed = System.currentTimeInMillis();
}
that's it and no threads required. You might want to use AtomicInteger to hold lastTimePlayed value if you want your class to be thread safe.

How to stop threads in Java?

I have made a java program with GUI and I want a stop button functionality in which when a user clicks on the stop button, the program must be stopped.
In my program, the main thread starts other 10 threads and I want that whenever the stop button has been clicked all the 10 threads must be stopped before the main thread.
Second, I also want that whenever any thread of those 10 threads is stopped, it must first close all the resources it had opened before like connection to a database etc.
I have implemented the code as answered by ........
Now there is one problem.
My thread class is like this:
public class ParserThread implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean stopped = false;
public void stopTheThread() {
stopped = true;
}
:
:
}
And below is the main thread that starts 10 threads from the function start()
public class Main() {
Thread [] threads;
public void start() {
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new ParserThread());
}
}
public void stop() {
// code to stop all the threads
}
}
Now I want to call the stop method of the ParserThread to set "stopped = true" to stop the thread. I want this thing to be done for all the 10 threads.
How can I call that stop method. I want it to be done in the stopAllThreads() method of the Main class.

Generally speaking, the way to do this is to have each of the other threads periodically check a flag. Often background threads loop, waiting for work - they just have to check the flag each time they go round a loop. If they're using Object.wait() or something similar to be told that there's more work, the same notification should be used to indicate that the thread should stop too. (Don't just spin until you're stopped - that will suck CPU. Don't just use sleep - that will delay termination.)
That allows all threads to terminate cleanly, releasing resources appropriately. Other options such as interrupt() and the deprecated destroy() method are much harder to control properly, IMO. (Interrupting a thread is better than hard-aborting it, but it has its own set of problems - such as the interruption is only processed at certain points anyway.)
EDIT: In code, it would look something like:
// Client code
for (Task task : tasks) {
task.stop();
}
// Threading code
public abstract class Task implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean stopped = false;
public void stop() {
stopped = true;
}
protected boolean shouldStop() {
return stopped;
}
public abstract void run();
}
Your tasks would then subclass Task. You would need to make it slightly more complicated if you wanted the stop() method to also notify a monitor, but that's the basic idea.
Sample task:
public class SomeTask extends Task {
public void run() {
while (!shouldStop()) {
// Do work
}
}
}

I don't think the answer solve the issue. here the code:
public class SomeTask extends Task {
public void run() {
while (!shouldStop()) {
// Do work
}
}
}
But how to handle if the "Do work" hang and does not return? In this case, the while cannot check the flag. The Thread still cannot stop.
The possible solution to this might be using Process.

Have a controller object which has a flag whether the threads should stop or not and each thread checks the controller periodically and exits if stop button is clicked (for example if you are transferring a file, then after each block is received/sent, check if stop is clicked).