We Keep Coding

How can I tell that threads in ThreadPoolExecutor are done?

I am writing code where I need to make sure that no threads are currently running in a thread pool before I commit results (to avoid losing data I should have put in the commit). For that, I'm using:
while (_executor.getActiveCount() > 0)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(10); // milliseconds
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// OK do nothing
}
}
But a colleague pointed out in review that the doc for getActiveCount states:
Returns the approximate number of threads that are actively
executing tasks.
So, is there a risk I would get out of the while loop while there are still active threads in the pool? If so, what would be the correct way to wait for all my worker threads to be done?
Edit: To give some more context: this is an online system, where the task that contains the executor service is left running indefinitely. Work comes in via a messaging system, is put on a thread in the executor, which doesn't need any synchronization, and works come out into another queue for the messaging system. I don't want to kill the executor to wait for completion of tasks.

You might want to consider using a CompletionService (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/CompletionService.html).
A CompletionService wraps an ExecutorService and returns a Future when tasks are submitted. By maintaining a list of these Futures, you can see if the jobs that you're waiting on have completed. It also has the additional advantage that you can have others use the same ExecutorService since you have some means of accounting,

_executor.awaitTermination(); should do the job. Now, it won't actually wait for the threads to shutdown, but rather it would wait for all available tasks to terminate.
You could also provide keepAliveTime to a thread pool constructor to instantly terminate idle threads:
ExecutorService executor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, 10, 0L /* keepAlive */,
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>());

To notify a thread that it should clean up and terminate, use the interrupt method.
t.interrupt();
and it is good to print or have log of your errors from catch block.

When tasks are submitted to the executor, they return Futures, which indicate when they complete. That is the preferred mechanism to use.
You can use JDK ExecutorService shutdown/awaitTermination.

Use case: need to cleanup thread-locals in pool threads upon their completion and this cleanup can take long (e.g. connection close). Only after that the main thread can continue.
A worker thread can register itself in some collection. For that override start() and run() and pass a custom thread factory to ThreadPoolExecutor:
class MyThreadFactory implements ThreadFactory {
#Override
public Thread newThread(final Runnable r) {
return new MyThread(r);
}
...
class Some {
void waitAllThreads() {
Thread worker;
while ((worker = workerThreads.poll()) != null) {
worker.join();
}
}
...
class MyThread extends Thread {
#Override
public synchronized void start() {
if (getState() == State.NEW) {
some.workerThreads.offer(this);
}
super.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
super.run();
} finally {
some.workerThreads.remove(this);
}
}
...

How do I run a thread in java that lets me know when another thread has died?

Assume that I have a thread A in java. This thread continues to perform some task A.
I have another thread B that must perform a task B only after Task A is finished. How do I implement this in Java?

You can use Thread.join() to basically block one thread until another thread terminates:
// In thread B
threadA.join();
doStuff();
Note that this won't work properly if you use a thread pool e.g. via an executor service. If you need to do that (and I'd generally recommend using executors instead of "raw" threads) you'd need to make the executor task notify any listeners that it has completed (e.g. via a CountDownLatch).
If you use Guava, you should look at ListenableFuture, too, which simplifies things.

You can use Thread Exceutor to acieve this. Executor keep the value in thread pool. Refer this link, It may help you
http://www.journaldev.com/1069/java-thread-pool-example-using-executors-and-threadpoolexecutor
see also
How to run thread after completing some specific worker thread

In Java SE 7 you could use CountDownLatch. Here is an example. Good thing that comes with using of CountDownLatch is that you can initialize it with certain number of required countdowns, so you can wait for a set of threads. Also it doesn't require thread to be completed (like in join()), thread can call countDown() in any place you want and continue execution.
Also, another approach is CyclicBarrier.
class Starter {
public static void main(String[] args) {
CountDownLatch signal = new CountDownLatch();
Thread a = new Worker(signal);
Thread b = new AnotherWorker(signal);
a.start();
b.start();
//doSomethingElse
}
}
class Worker extends Thread {
CountDownLatch signal;
Worker(CountDownLatch signal) {
this.signal = signal;
}
public void run(){
//doSomething
signal.await(); //wait until thread b dies
//doSomethingElse
}
}
class AnotherWorker extends Thread {
CountDownLatch signal;
AnotherWorker(CountDownLatch signal) {
this.signal = signal;
}
public void run(){
//doSomething
signal.countDown(); //notify a about finish
}
}

Java threads scheduling

I have a MainClass, a Worker class and a Supervisor class. In MainClass i create 10 Worker classes and a Supervisor class that run in separate threads.
class MainClass {
public static void main(String args[]) {
for (int i=0; i<10 ;i++) {
Thread t = new Thread( new Worker());
t.start();
}
(new Thread(new Supervisor()).start();
}
.
class Worker extends Thread {
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(some_condition) {
//do stuff
} else {
// pause thread execution for undefined time.
}
}
}
}
.
class Supervisor extends Thread {
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(some_condition) {
// restart Workers thread that are paused.
}
// do other stuff
}
}
}
I don't know how to implement this, cause the conditions in every thread are independent from each other so i don't need to synchronize, so i can't use wait-notify.

I don't know how to implement this, cause the conditions in every thread are independent from each other so i don't need to synchronize, so i can't use wait-notify.
Sure you can.
The subtlety here is that presumably Supervisor doesn't actually know whether worker threads are really paused. (If it does, then the conditions are not independent.)
Since Supervisor doesn't know whether the threads are actually paused (by assumption), you have to design what you want to happen if it tries to unpause an already-unpaused thread.
a) Should an unpause do nothing?
b) Or should it immediately unpause the next time a worker tries to pause itself?
If the answer is (b), then you have to worry about thread safety. If the answer is (a), then you don't (unless you have some other data to pass between threads!)
Either way, you can still use wait and notify.

As per my understanding u want to create separate thread pools which consist of 10 workers or number as per your requirement.
As far as pools are concerned you can check for ThreadPoolExecutor in java.util.concurrent api. Internally ThreadPoolexecutor also creates worker Threads for running tasks.
Try reading ThreadPoolExecutor it might help you or please elaborate your question whats your ultimate objective you wish to achieve by this problem.

Java ExecutorService pause/resume a specific thread

Is there a way to use ExecutorService to pause/resume a specific thread?
private static ExecutorService threadpool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
Imagine that I want to stop the thread which as the id=0 (assuming that to each one is assigned an incremental id until the size of the threadpool is reached).
After a while, by pressing a button let's say, I want to resume that specific thread and leave all the other threads with their current status, which can be paused or resumed.
I have found on Java documentation a uncompleted version of PausableThreadPoolExecutor. But it doesn't suit what I need because it resume all the threads in the pool.
If there's no way to do it with the default implementation of the ExecutorService can anyone point me to a Java implementation for this problem?

You are on the wrong track. The thread pool owns the threads and by sharing them with your code could mess things up.
You should focus on making your tasks (passed to the threads cancellable/interruptable) and not interact with the threads owned by the pool directly.
Additionally you would not know what job is being executed at the time you try to interrupt the thread, so I can't see why you would be interested in doing this
Update:
The proper way to cancel your task submitted in the thread pool is via the Future for the task returned by the executor.
1)This way you know for sure that the task you actually aim at is attempted to be cancelled
2)If your tasks are already designed to be cancellable then your are half way there
3) Do not use a flag to indicate cancellation but use Thread.currentThread().interrupt() instead
Update:
public class InterruptableTasks {
private static class InterruptableTask implements Runnable{
Object o = new Object();
private volatile boolean suspended = false;
public void suspend(){
suspended = true;
}
public void resume(){
suspended = false;
synchronized (o) {
o.notifyAll();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
if(!suspended){
//Do work here
}
else{
//Has been suspended
try {
while(suspended){
synchronized(o){
o.wait();
}
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
System.out.println("Cancelled");
}
}
/**
* #param args
* #throws InterruptedException
*/
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
InterruptableTask task = new InterruptableTask();
Map<Integer, InterruptableTask> tasks = new HashMap<Integer, InterruptableTask>();
tasks.put(1, task);
//add the tasks and their ids
Future<?> f = threadPool.submit(task);
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(2);
InterruptableTask theTask = tasks.get(1);//get task by id
theTask.suspend();
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(2);
theTask.resume();
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(4);
threadPool.shutdownNow();
}

Suggestion: Similarly to/instead of the flags you're using, create a semaphore with 1 permit (new Semaphore(1)) for each task you need to pause/unpause. At the beginning of the task's working cycle put a code like this:
semaphore.acquire();
semaphore.release();
This causes the task to acquire a semaphore permit and immediately release it. Now if you want to pause the thread (a button is pressed, for example), call semaphore.acquire() from another thread. Since the semaphore has 0 permits now, your working thread will pause at the beginning of the next cycle and wait until you call semaphore.release() from the other thread.
(The acquire() method throws InterruptedException, if your working thread gets interrupted while waiting. There is another method acquireUninterruptibly(), which also tries to acquire a permit, but doesn't get interrupted.)

One scenario could be, one wants to simulate a number of devices. Devices have functions. Altogether this collection of devices runs concurrently. And now if a thread represents a device ( or one thread for one function of a device ), one might want to control the life cycle of the device like start(), shutdown(), resume()

java thread reusage via executor

I am confused on the following:
To use threads in a Java program, the simplest way is to extend Thread class and implement the runnable interface (or simply implement runnable).
To start the thread's execution. we must call the Thread's method start(), which in turn calls method run() of the thread. And so the thread starts.
The method start() (unless I am wrong) must be called exactly and only once for each thread. As a result, thread instances can not be reused unless somehow the run method itself runs in some-short of infinite loop that facilitates a custom implementation of the thread's reusage.
Now the javadoc
link text
says
Calls to execute will reuse previously constructed threads if available
I do not understand how this is implemented.
I provide in the execute method of the executor method my custom thread e.g.
ExecutorService myCachedPool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
myCachedPool.execute(new Runnable(){public void run(){
//do something time consuming
}});
How can this custom thread I delegeate to the executor framework be reused?
Is Executor is allowed to call method start() more than 1 time, while we can not in our programs?
Am I misunderstanding something?
Thank you.

Note that it's not Executor that calls start() - it's ExecutorService. And no, it's not calling start() twice. It doesn't start the task that you give it directly using Thread.start()... instead, it starts a thread which knows about that thread pool's queue of work. The thread will basically wait until there's some work to do, then pick it up and execute it, before going back to waiting. So although the thread performs several tasks, Thread.start() is only called once.
EDIT: Judging by the comments, you're a bit confused about the difference between a Runnable (which is a task to be executed) and a Thread (which is what executes tasks).
The same thread can execute multiple tasks. For a very simple example not using a thread pool, consider this:
public class MultiRunnable implements Runnable
{
private final List<Runnable> runnables;
public MultiRunnable(List<Runnable> runnables)
{
this.runnables = runnables;
}
public void run()
{
for (Runnable runnable : runnables)
{
runnable.run();
}
}
}
(Ignore the potential thread safety issues of using a List<T> from multiple threads.)
You could create a whole bunch of Runnable tasks capable of doing different things, then create a single MultiRunnable to run them in turn. Pass that instance of MultiRunnable into the Thread constructor, and then when you start the thread, it will execute each of the original runnable tasks. Does that help?

It is not calling start() more than once; instead the Thread in the pool never completes, but just stays alive---waiting. The source code is available for download if you want to look at it.
Each Thread in the thread pool can simply wait() for the Executor to hand it a new Runnable, but the Thread's own run() method has not completed. It simply waits for a new Runnable to be given to the Executor.

To "start" a thread more than once, create a runnable. For example:
//NO
private class T extends Thread { //not necessary to implement runnable
public void run(){
//...
}
}
void someMethod(){
T a = new T();
a.start();
a.start(); //NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
}
Instead,
//Yes
private class T implements Runnable {
public void run(){
//...
}
}
void someMethod(){
T a = new T();
new Thread(a).start();
new Thread(a).start(); //YES YES YES
}
It is also possible to do this:
void someMethod(){
final Runnable r = new Runnable(){
public void run(){
//...
}
};
new Thread(r).start();
new Thread(r).start();
}
// r could also be a field of you class.