We Keep Coding

Difference between ForkJoinPool and normal ExecutionService?

I read a great article about the fork-join framework in Java 7, and the idea is that, with ForkJoinPool and ForkJoinTask, the threads in the pool can get the sub tasks from other tasks, so it's able to use less threads to handle more tasks.
Then I tried to use a normal ExecutorService to do the same work, and found I can't tell the difference, since when I submit a new task to the pool, the task will be run on another available thread.
The only difference I can tell is if I use ForkJoinPool, I don't need to pass the pool to the tasks, because I can call task.fork() to make it running on another thread. But with normal ExecutorService, I have to pass the pool to the task, or make it a static, so inside the task, I can call pool.submit(newTask)
Do I miss something?
(You can view the living code from https://github.com/freewind/fork-join-test/tree/master/src)

Although ForkJoinPool implements ExecutorService, it is conceptionally different from 'normal' executors.
You can easily see the difference if your tasks spawn more tasks and wait for them to complete, e.g. by calling
executor.invoke(new Task()); // blocks this thread until new task completes
In a normal executor service, waiting for other tasks to complete will block the current thread. There are two possible outcomes: If your executor service has a fixed number of threads, it might deadlock if the last running thread waits for another task to complete. If your executor dynamically creates new threads on demand, the number of threads might explode and you end up having thousands of threads which might cause starvation.
In opposite, the fork/join framework reuses the thread in the meantime to execute other tasks, so it won't deadlock although the number of threads is fixed:
new MyForkJoinTask().invoke();
So if you have a problem that you can solve recursively, think of using a ForkJoinPool as you can easily implement one level of recursion as ForkJoinTask.
Just check the number of running threads in your examples.

Is Thread to be favoured over Executor here?

As far as I understand Executors help handling the execution of runnables. E.g. I would choose using an executor when I have several worker threads that do their job and then terminate.
The executor would handle the creation and the termination of the Threads needed to execute the worker runnables.
However now I am facing another situation. A fixed number of classes/objects shall encapsulate their own thread. So the thread is started at the creation of those objects and the Thread shall continue running for the whole life time of these objects.
The few objects in turn are created at the start of the programm and exist for the whole run time.
I guess Threads are preferable over Executors in this situation, however when I read the internet everybody seems to suggest using Executors over Threads in any possible situation.
Can somebody please tell me if I want to choose Executors or Threads here and why?
Thanks

You're somewhat mixing things. Executor is just an interface. Thread is a core class. There's nothing which directly implies that Executor implementations execute tasks in separate threads.
Read the first few lines of the JavaDoc.
Executor
So if you want full control, just use Thread and do things on your own.

Without knowing more about the context, it's hard to give a good answer, but generally speaking I'd say that the situations that calls for using Thread are pretty few and far between. If you start trying to synchronize your program "manually" using synchronized I bet things will get out of hand quickly. (Not to mention how hard it will be to debug the code.)
Last time I used a thread was when I wanted to record some audio in the background. It was a "start"/"stop" kind of thing, and not "task oriented". (I tried long and hard to try to find an audio library that would encapsulate that for me but failed.)
If you choose to go for a thread-solution, I suggest you try to limit the scope of the thread to only execute within the associated object. This will to an as large extent as possible avoid forcing you to think about happens-before relations, thread-safe publishing of values etc throughout the code.

ExecutorService can have thread pool
It optimizes performance, because creating a Thread is expensive.
ExecutorService has life cycle control
shutdown(), shutdownNow() etc are provided.
ExecutorService is flexible
You could invoke variety of behaviors: customize ThreadFactory, set thread pool size, delay behavior ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor etc...

Java ThreadPool concepts, and issues with controlling the number of actual threads

I am a newbie to Java concurrency and am a bit confused by several concepts and implementation issues here. Hope you guys can help.
Say, I have a list of tasks stored in a thread-safe list wrapper:
ListWrapper jobs = ....
'ListWrapper' has synchronized fetch/push/append functions, and this 'jobs' object will be shared by multiple worker threads.
And I have a worker 'Runnable' to execute the tasks:
public class Worker implements Runnable{
private ListWrapper jobs;
public Worker(ListWrapper l){
this.jobs=l;
}
public void run(){
while(! jobs.isEmpty()){
//fetch an item from jobs and do sth...
}
}
}
Now in the main function I execute the tasks:
int NTHREADS =10;
ExecutorService service= Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NTHREADS);
//run threads..
int x=3;
for(int i=0; i<x; i++){
service.execute(new Worker(jobs) );
}
I tested this code with 'x=3', and I found that only 3 threads are running at the same time; but as I set 'x=20', I found that only 10 (=NTHREADS) are running at the same time. Seems to me the # of actual threads is the min of the two values.
Now my questions are:
1) Which value ('x' or 'NTHREADS') should I set to control the number of concurrent threads? Or it doesn't matter in either I choose?
2) How is this approach different from simply using the Producer-Consumer pattern --creating a fixed number of 'stud' threads to execute the tasks(shown in the code below)?
Thread t1= new Worker(jobs);
Thread t2= new Worker(jobs);
...
t1.join();
t2.join();
...
Thank you very much!!

[[ There are some good answers here but I thought I'd add some more detail. ]]
I tested this code with 'x=3', and I found that only 3 threads are running at the same time; but as I set 'x=20', I found that only 10 (=NTHREADS) are running at the same time. Seems to me the # of actual threads is the min of the two values.
No, not really. I suspect that the reason you weren't seeing 20 threads is that threads had already finished or had yet to be started. If you call new Thread(...).start() 20 times then you will get 20 threads started. However, if you check immediately none of them may have actually begun to run or if you check later they may have finished.
1) Which value ('x' or 'NTHREADS') should I set to control the number of concurrent threads? Or it doesn't matter in either I choose?
Quoting the Javadocs of Executors.newFixedThreadPool(...):
Creates a thread pool that reuses a fixed number of threads operating off a shared unbounded queue. At any point, at most nThreads threads will be active processing tasks.
So changing the NTHREADS constant changes the number of threads running in the pool. Changing x changes the number of jobs that are executed by those threads. You could have 2 threads in the pool and submit 1000 jobs or you could have 1000 threads and only submit 1 job for them to work on.
Btw, after you have submitted all of your jobs, you should then shutdown the pool which stops all of the threads if all of the jobs have been run.
service.shutdown();
2) How is this approach different from simply using the Producer-Consumer pattern --creating a fixed number of 'stud' threads to execute the tasks(shown in the code below)?
It differs in that it does all of the heavy work for you.
You don't have to create a ListWrapper of the jobs since you get one inside of the ExecutorService. You just submit the jobs to the ExecutorService and it keeps track of them until the threads are available to run them.
You don't have to create any threads or worry about them throwing exceptions and dying because the ExecutorService starts/restarts the threads for you.
If you want your tasks to return information you can make use of the submit(Callable) method and use the Future to get the results of the jobs. Etc, etc..
Doing this code yourself is going to be harder to get right, more code to maintain, and most likely will not perform as well as the code in the JDK that is battle tested and optimized.

You shouldn't create threads by yourself when using a threadpool. Instead of WorkerThread class you should use a class that implements Runnable but is not a thread. Passing a Thread object to the threadpool won't make the thread run actually. The object will be passed to a different internal thread, which will simply execute the run method of your WorkerThread class.
The ExecutorService is simply incompatible with the way you want to write your program.
In the code you have right now, these WorkerThreads will stop to work when your ListWrapper is empty. If you then add something to the list, nothing will happen. This is definitely not what you wanted.
You should get rid of ListWrapper and simply put your tasks directly into the threadpool. The threadpool already incorporates an internal list of jobs shared between the threads. You should just submit your jobs to the threadpool and it will handle them accordingly.
To answer your questions:
1) Which value ('x' or 'NTHREADS') should I set to control the number of concurrent threads? Or it doesn't matter in either I choose?
NTHREADS, the threadpool will create the necessary number of threads.
2) How is this approach different from simply using the Producer-Consumer pattern --creating a fixed number of 'stud' threads to execute the tasks(shown in the code below)?
It's just that ExecutorService automates a lot of things for you. You can choose from a lot of different implementations of threadpools and you can substitute them easily. You can use for instance a scheduled executor. You get extra functionality. Why reinvent the wheel?

For 1) NTHREADS is the maximum threads that the pool will ever run concurrently, but that doesn't mean there will always be that many running. It will only use as many as is needed up to that max value... which in your case is 3.
As the docs say:
At any point, at most nThreads threads will be active processing tasks. If additional tasks are submitted when all threads are active, they will wait in the queue until a thread is available
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Executors.html#newFixedThreadPool-int-
As for 2) using Java's concurrent executors framework is preferred with new code. You get a lot of stuff for free and removes the need for having to handle all of the fiddly thread work yourself.

The number of threads passed into newFixedThreadPool is at most how many threads could be running executing your tasks. If you only have three tasks ever submitted I'd expect the ExecutorService to only create three threads.
To answer your questions:
You should use the number you pass into the constructor to control how many threads are going to be used to execute your tasks.
This differs because of the extra functionality the ExecutorService gives you, as well as the flexibility it gives you such as in the case you need to change your ExecutorService type or number of tasks you'll run (less lines of code to change).

All that is happening is the executor service is only creating as many threads as it needs. NTHREADS is effectively the maximum number of threads it'll create.
There is no point creating ten threads up front if it only has 3 tasks to complete, the other 7 will just be hanging around consuming resources.
If you submit more than NTHREADS number of tasks then it will process that number concurrently and the rest will wait on a queue until a thread becomes free.
This isn't any different from creating a fixed set of your own threads, except the thread management and scheduling is handled for you. The executor service also restarts threads if they are killed by rogue exceptions in your task which you'd otherwise have to code for.
See: The Javadoc on Executorservice.newFixedThreadPool

Schedule periodic tasks in Java, avoid creating new threads until necessary (like CachedThreadPool)

I have a number of tasks that I would like to execute periodically at different rates for most tasks. Some of the tasks may be scheduled for simultaneous execution though. Also, a task may need to start executing while another is currently executing.
I would also like to customize each task by setting an object for it, on which the task will operate while it is being executed.
Usually, the tasks will execute in periods of 2 to 30 minutes and will take around 4-5 seconds, sometimes up to 30 seconds when they are executed.
I've found Executors.newSingleThreadedScheduledExecutor(ThreadFactory) to be almost exactly what I want, except that it might cause me problems if a new task happens to be scheduled for execution while another is already executing. This is due to the fact that the Executor is backed up by a single execution thread.
The alternative is to use Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(corePoolSize, ThreadFactory), but this requires me to create a number of threads in a pool. I would like to avoid creating threads until it is necessary, for instance if I have two or more tasks that happen to need parallell executing due to their colliding execution schedules.
For the case above, the Executors.newCachedThreadPool(ThreadFactory) appears to do what I want, but then I can't schedule my tasks. A combination of both cached and scheduled executors would be best I think, but I am unable to find something like that in Java.
What would be the best way to implement the above do you think?

Isn't ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor(int):
ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor executor = new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor(0);
what you need? 0 is the corePoolSize:
corePoolSize - the number of threads to keep in the pool, even if they are idle, unless allowCoreThreadTimeOut is set

I guess you will not able to do that with ScheduledExecutor, because it uses DelayedWorkQueue where as newCachedThreadPool uses ThreadPoolExecutor SynchronousQueue as a work queue.
So you can not change implementation of ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor to act like that.

ThreadPoolExecutor on java doc

at http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ThreadPoolExecutor.html
you can read the description of parameters to constructor.
Specifically in the "Core and maximum pool sizes" paragraph, it's written:
If there are more than corePoolSize but less than maximumPoolSize threads running, a new thread will be created only if the queue is full.
...
By setting maximumPoolSize to an essentially unbounded value such as Integer.MAX_VALUE, you allow the pool to accommodate an arbitrary number of concurrent tasks.
Now I can't understand what "only if the queue is full" in the first part stands for...
Will ThreadPoolExecutor wait until queue is full or it will simply create a new worker?
An suppose now that we have more tasks that aren't asynchronous between them: using a ThreadPoolExecutor could cause a deadlock? Supposing that my first 10 tasks are producer and that CorePoolSize is 10, then succeeding consumer tasks will go to queue and won't run until the queue is full? If so this behavior may cause deadlock because first 10 producers could go on wait, suspending all 10 threads of the Core.
When the queue is full?
I'm not sure I understood well the documentation, because Executors.newCachedThreadPool() seems to create a new Worker until maxPoolSize is reached and THEN it sends task to queue.
I'm a little confused.
Thank you

When you construct the ThreadPoolExecutor, you pass in an instance of BlockingQueue<Runnable> called workQueue, to hold the tasks, and it is this queue that is being referred to.
In fact, the section of the docs called "Queuing" goes into more detail about the phrase you're confused about:
Any BlockingQueue may be used to transfer and hold submitted tasks. The use of this queue interacts with pool sizing:
If fewer than corePoolSize threads are running, the Executor always prefers adding a new thread rather than queuing.
If corePoolSize or more threads are running, the Executor always prefers queuing a request rather than adding a new thread.
If a request cannot be queued, a new thread is created unless this would exceed maximumPoolSize, in which case, the task will be rejected.
As for your second part, about inter-task dependencies - in this case I don't think it's a good idea to put them into an ExecutorService at all. The ExecutorService is good for running a self-contained bit of code at some point in the future, but by design it's not meant to be strongly deterministic about when this happens, other than "at some convenient point in the (hopefully near) future, after tasks that were previously queued have started."
Combine this lack of precision of timing, with the hard ordering requirements that concurrent operation imposes, and you can see that having a producer and a consumer that need to talk to each other, put into a general purpose ExecutorService, is a recipe for very annoying and confusing bugs.
Yes, I'm sure you could get it to work with sufficient tweaking of parameters. However, it wouldn't be clear why it worked, it wouldn't be clear what the dependencies were, and when (not if) it broke, it would be very hard to diagnose. (Harder than normal concurrency problems, I suspect). The bottom line is that an ExecutorService isn't designed to run Runnables with hard timing restrictions, so this could even be broken by a new release of Java, because it doesn't have to work like this.
I think you're asking the wrong question, by looking at the details when perhaps your concepts are a little shaky. Perhaps if you explained what you wanted to achieve there would be a better way to go about it.

To clarify your first quote - if the executor already has corePoolSize threads running, and all of those threads are busy when a new task is submitted, it will not create any more threads, but will enqueue the task until one of the threads becomes free. It will only create a new thread (up to the maxPoolSize limit) when the queue becomes full. If the queue is huge (i.e. bounded only by memory constraints) then no more than corePoolSize threads will ever be created.
Executors.newCachedThreadPool() will create an executor with a zero-sized queue, so the queue is always full. This means that it will create a new thread (or re-use an idle one) as soon as you submit the task. As such, it's not a good demonstration of what the core/max/queue parameters are for.