I have an AutoCloseable whose close() method is being called prematurely. The AutoCloseable is ProcessQueues below. I don't want the close() method to be called when it is currently being called. I'm considering the removal of "implements AutoCloseable" to accomplish that. But then how do I know when to call ProcessQueues.close()?
public class ProcessQueues implements AutoCloseable {
private ArrayList<MessageQueue> queueObjects = new ArrayList<MessageQueue>();
public ProcessQueues() {
queueObjects.add(new FFE_DPVALID_TO_SSP_EXCEPTION());
queueObjects.add(new FFE_DPVALID_TO_SSP_ESBEXCEPTION());
...
}
private void scheduleProcessRuns() {
try {
for (MessageQueue obj : queueObjects) {
monitorTimer.schedule(obj, new Date(), 1); // NOT THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS
}
}
catch (Exception ex) {
// NOT THE ACTUAL EXCEPTION HANDLER
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
try (ProcessQueues pq = new ProcessQueues()) {
pq.scheduleProcessRuns();
} catch (Exception e) {
// NOT THE ACTUAL EXCEPTION HANDLER
}
}
#Override
public void close() throws Exception {
for (MessageQueue queue : queueObjects) {
queue.close();
}
}
}
I want ProcessQueues.close() to be called, but not until the task execution threads of all Timer objects terminate. As written, ProcessQueues.close() will be called as soon as the tasks are scheduled. I can easily solve that by removing "implements AutoCloseable" from the ProcessQueues class (and removing the #Override annotation). But then I have to call ProcessQueues.close() myself. How do I know when the task execution threads of all Timer objects have terminated? That's when I want to call ProcessQueues.close().
Note that MessageQueue isn't instantiated in the resource specification header of a try-with-resources block, so although MessageQueue also implements AutoCloseable, the feature isn't utilized here. I'm explicitly calling MessageQueue.close(). It is in MessageQueue.close() that I release resources. Releasing those resources prematurely causes the task execution threads to fail to complete their tasks.
I'm considering an explicit call to ProcessQueues.close() after rewriting the code to prevent automatic resource deallocation, but again I don't know how to discover the right time for that explicit call.
I considered overriding ProcessQueues.finalize(), but "Java: How to Program", Eleventh Edition advises against that. "You should never use method finalize, because it can cause many problems and there's uncertainty as to whether it will ever get called before a program terminates... Now it's considered better practice for any class that uses system resources... to provide a method that programmers can call to release resources when they're no longer needed in a program." I have such a method. It's ProcessQueues.close(). But when should I call it?
You have conflicting lifecycle issues here.
You have Timer whose lifecycle is 100% in your control. You start it, you stop it, and that's it. But you have no direct introspection in to the status of the threads being managed by the Timer. So, you can't ask it if it has anything currently running, for example.
Then you have your MessageQueue, which is invoked by the Timer. This is the lifecycle you're interested in. You want to wait for all of the MessageQueues to be "done", for assorted values of done. But, since the queue are constantly being rescheduled (given the Timer.schedule method that you're using), they're NEVER "done". They process their contents and go off and run again.
So, how is anyone to know when "done" means "done"?
Is it up to the MessageQueue? Or is it up to the ProcessQueues? Who's in command here?
Notice, nothing ever cancels the Timer. It's just runs on and on and on.
So, how can one know when MessageQueue can be closed?
If MessageQueue is the real driver here, then you should add lifecycle methods to the MessageQueue that ProcessQueues can monitor to know when to shut things down. For example, you could create a CountDownLatch set for however many MessageQueues are in your list, and then subscribe to a new lifecycle method on the MessageQueue that it calls when it's finished. The callback method can then decrement the CountDownLatch, and the ProcessQueues.close method simply waits on the latch to countdown before closing everything.
public class ProcessQueues implements AutoCloseable, MessageQueueListener {
private ArrayList<MessageQueue> queueObjects = new ArrayList<MessageQueue>();
CountDownLatch latch;
public ProcessQueues() {
queueObjects.add(new FFE_DPVALID_TO_SSP_EXCEPTION());
queueObjects.add(new FFE_DPVALID_TO_SSP_ESBEXCEPTION());
...
queueObjects.forEach((mq) -> {
mq.setListener(this);
});
latch = new CountDownLatch(queueObjects.size());
}
private void scheduleProcessRuns() {
try {
for (MessageQueue obj : queueObjects) {
monitorTimer.schedule(obj, new Date(), 1); // NOT THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
// NOT THE ACTUAL EXCEPTION HANDLER
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
try (ProcessQueues pq = new ProcessQueues()) {
pq.scheduleProcessRuns();
} catch (Exception e) {
// NOT THE ACTUAL EXCEPTION HANDLER
}
}
#Override
public void close() throws Exception {
latch.await();
for (MessageQueue queue : queueObjects) {
queue.close();
}
monitorTimer.cancel();
}
#Override
public void messageQueueDone() {
latch.countDown();
}
}
public interface MessageQueueListener {
public void messageQueueDone();
}
public class MessageQueue extends TimerTask {
MessageQueueListener listener;
public void setListener(MessageQueueListener listener) {
this.listener = listener;
}
private boolean isMessageQueueReallyDone {
...
}
public void run() {
...
if (isMessageQueueReallyDone() && listener != null) {
listener.messageQueueDone();
}
}
}
Mind, this means that your try-with-resource block will block waiting on all of the MessageQueues, if that's what you want, then you're good to go.
It also crassly assumes that your MessageQueue.run() knows when to shut down, which goes back to that "who's in control here" thing.
I could terminate the Timer, but having it run perpetually is intentional. The question is in consideration of what happens when something else terminates the Timer and the MessageQueue objects are no longer needed. It is at that point that I would like to call ProcessQueues.close().
If I were to use the Executor framework, rather than Timer, then I could use ExecutorService.awaitTermination(long timeout, TimeUnit unit)
TimerTask is a Runnable, and MessageQueue is already a TimerTask, so MessageQueue need not change.
'ExecutorService.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.DAYS)' would effectively wait forever for termination.
public static void main(String[] args) {
try (ProcessQueues pq = new ProcessQueues()) {
pq.scheduleProcessRuns();
// Don't take this literally.
ExecutorService.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.DAYS);
} catch (Exception e) {
// NOT THE ACTUAL EXCEPTION HANDLER
}
}
Of course, awaitTermination isn't a static method, so I'll have to have an ExecutorService, but you get the idea.
After termination, the AutoCloseable feature is leveraged and ProcessQueues.close() is implicitly called.
All that remains is to start the threads for perpetually repeated calls to each TimerTask, using the Executor framework. The answer to that question is ScheduledExecutorService.
I think this will work.
Related
Consider this code:
class Solver {
private boolean abort = false;
public void solve(List<Case> cases) {
while(!abort) {
for(Case c : cases)
compute(c); // method that take too long to finish
}
}
// a bunch of methods
public void abort() {
abort = true;
}
}
// in another class
Solver solver = new Solver();
solver.solve(cases);
public void onSolveAborted() {
solver.abort();
}
How can I change this solution so I can abort the solve function instantly. I know I can implements the Runnable interface in Solver class so I can stop the thread. This will introduce many changes in our code and I don't know if the framework we are using allow creating threads.
This will not be possible without the use of threads. Something has to set abort() before the running thread will stop. Take a look at this example:
class Solver implements Runnable {
private List<Case> cases;
public Solver(List<Case> cases) {
this.cases = cases;
}
private void compute(Case c) {
try {
// Do some computation here
} finally {
// Sound the horns! Abandon ship!
}
}
public void solve(List<Object> cases) {
for (Case c : cases) {
try {
compute(c); // method that take too long to finish
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Hmm, maybe I should take the hint...
break;
}
}
}
public void run() {
solve(cases);
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
List<Case> cases = new ArrayList<Case>();
// Populate cases
Thread t = new Thread(new Solver(cases));
t.run();
do {
// Wait 30 seconds
t.join(30 * 1000);
// Not done yet? Lets drop a hint..
if(t.isAlive()) {
t.interrupt();
}
} while (t.isAlive());
}
}
Very simply, it launches solve in a thread. The main thread waits up to 30 seconds then interrupts solve method. The solve method catches the interruption and gracefully exits the computation. Unlike your solution using boolean abort, this launches an InterruptedException from anywhere in your thead code (and you should deal with the exception accordingly!) allowing you to halt execution at any time.
If you want more control, you can add the try.. catch inside compute so you can have a finally clause to close any opened files or whatnot. Perhaps better still, have a try.. finally in compute to deal with closing things in a "nice" way and the try.. catch (InterruptedException) in the solve method to handle what happens in the case of interruption (in short, cleanup logic and interruption logic don't have to be in the same method).
Do somthing like this
Let say, you have 100 cases, 10 has been solved and you want to abort remaing 90.
In your code, you are solving all the cases in one iteration, after that while loop check for abort.
public void solve(List<Case> cases) {
Iterator<Case> iterator = cases.iterator();
while (iterator.hasNext() && !abort) {
Case c=iterator.iterator.next();
compute(c);
}
}
Change your class to Runnable and use ExecutorService to run it. Then you can just use methods "shutDown()" or "shutDownNow()" methods. This is cleaner and less intrusive then what you suggested in your own question. Plus killing thread manually is a REALLY BAD idea. At some point in JDK itself in thread method "kill()" was killed as there is no clean way to do so properly
I am using Executors for thread pool, and submitting tasks. Can executorService.shutdownNow will shutdown all the tasks even though some of them may be blocked on I/O calls to database or Socket?
It depends on whether your tasks are well written!
The documentation says: "The shutdown() method will allow previously submitted tasks to execute before terminating, while the shutdownNow() method prevents waiting tasks from starting and attempts to stop currently executing tasks."
However, Java doesn't kill threads "out of thin air". It tries to interrupt them. A good task will throw an InterruptException of some sort when shtudownNow tries to interrupt them, and end gracefully. You mention socket communication- most decent clients' blocking methods will throw an interrupted exception if they are interrupted.
An example of a bad task might be (rather obviously) to run a thread with while(true) { readChunk(); if(endOfChunks) { break;} }. This offers no graceful interrupt check! It's the old rule not to use while loops to wait, but to wait() using syncronized on a 'blocker' object that can be interrupted.
No, there is no guarantee. If you see the API doc for ExecutorService#shutdownNow. It says,
There are no guarantees beyond best-effort attempts to stop processing actively executing tasks.
If you want to block until all tasks have completed execution after a shutdown request,use ExecutorService#awaitTermination.
When its not possible to handle interrupts (java.io), non-standard shutdown logic is required.
My solution to encapsulating this problem combines the examples 'TrackingExecutorService' and 'SocketUsingTask' from 'Java Concurrency In Practice'.
Define a 'Shutdownable' interface
Extend ThreadPoolExecutor to track running submitted tasks that implement the 'Shutdownable' interface
override ThreadPoolExecutor's shutdownNow to invoke non-standard shutdown logic via the 'Shutdownable' interface
public interface Shutdownable {
public void shutdown();
}
public class ShutdowningExecutor extends ThreadPoolExecutor{
private final Set runningShutdownables
= Collections.synchronizedSet(new HashSet());
#Override
protected RunnableFuture newTaskFor(final Callable callable){
if (callable instanceof Shutdownable) {
runningShutdownables.add((Shutdownable) callable);
return super.newTaskFor(new Callable(){
#Override
public T call() throws Exception {
T t = callable.call();
runningShutdownables.remove((Shutdownable) callable);
return t;
}
});
} else
return super.newTaskFor(callable);
}
public void shutdownAll() {
for(Shutdownable shutdownable : runningShutdownables) {
shutdownable.shutdown();
}
}
#Override
public List shutdownNow(){
shutdownAll();
return super.shutdownNow();
}
}
public abstract class ShutdownableViaCloseable implements Shutdownable{
private Closeable closeable;
protected synchronized void setCloseable(Closeable c) { closeable = c; }
public synchronized void shutdown() {
try {
if (closeable != null)
closeable.close();
} catch (IOException ignored) { }
}
}
public class MySocketTask extends ShutdownableViaCloseable implements Callable {
public MySocketTask(Socket s) {
setCloseable(s);
//constructor stuff
}
public Void call() {
try (Socket socket = this.socket) {
while(!socket.isClosed) {
//do stuff
}
}
}
}
Simply put: you cannot rely on that. The ExecutorService simply interrupts the running tasks; it is up to the implementation of the tasks if they really cancel their endeavor. Some I/O can (and will) be interrupted, especially the java.nio stuff, but the java.io is most likely not interrupted. See What does java.lang.Thread.interrupt() do? for a bit more explanation.
Here's essentially my problem:
while (true) {
if (previous 'doWorkAsync' method is not still in flight) {
doWorkAsync() // this returns immediately
}
wait set amount of time
}
A couple solutions come to mind for me:
Block until doWorkAsync() completes. This is not desirable to me for a few reasons.
It (potentially) results in waiting longer than I really needed to in the 'wait some set amount of time' line (e.g. if doWorkAsync takes 5 seconds, and the set amount of waiting time is 10 seconds, this will result in 15 seconds of waiting between calls, which isn't what I wanted). Of course, I could account for this by waiting less time, but somehow it just feels clunky.
It also ties up this thread unnecessarily. Instead of waiting for this task to come back, this thread could handle other work, like making config updates so the next call to doWorkAsync() has fresh data.
Use a gating mechanism. The easiest implementation that comes to mind is a boolean, set before calls to doWorkAsync(), and unset when doWorkAsync() completes. This is essentially what I'm doing now, but I'm not sure if it's an anti-pattern??
Is #2 the right way to go, or are there better ways to solve this problem?
EDIT: If it helps, doWorkAsync() returns a ListenableFuture (of guava).
The original question may not have been 100% clear. Here's the crux. If the async request finishes before the given timeout, this code will always work. However, if the async task takes SET_AMOUNT_OF_TIME + epsilon to complete, then this code will sleep twice as long as necessary, which is what I'm trying to avoid.
The simplest way to do this is using the wait and notifyAll methods already in Java. All you need to do is use an AtomicBoolean as a flag and block on it until the another Thread tells you something has changed.
The difference between that and your approach is that a blocked thread doesn't do anything whereas a polling thread uses CPU time.
Here is a simple example using two Threads - the Runnable "First" is submitted and it waits on done until the Runnable "Second" notifies that it has changed the flag.
public class App {
private static final AtomicBoolean done = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private static final class First implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (!done.get()) {
System.out.println("Waiting.");
synchronized (done) {
try {
done.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
}
}
System.out.println("Done!");
}
}
private static final class Second implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
done.set(true);
synchronized (done) {
done.notifyAll();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
executorService.submit(new First());
Thread.sleep(1000);
executorService.submit(new Second());
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
The sleep calls are just to show that a task of arbitrary length can take place, obviously they are not required.
The thing to note is that First prints "waiting" every time it enters the loop and, if you run the code, it only prints it once. The second thing to note is that First reacts to the changing of the flag immediately as it is told to awake and recheck when the flag is changed.
I have used return in the InterruptedException blocks, you may want to used Thread.currentThread().interrupt() instead so that the process doesn't die if it's spuriously interrupted.
A more advanced approach is to use Lock and Condition
public class App {
private static final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private static final Condition condition = lock.newCondition();
private static final class First implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
lock.lock();
System.out.println("Waiting");
try {
condition.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
System.out.println("Done!");
}
}
private static final class Second implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
lock.lock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
condition.signalAll();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
executorService.submit(new First());
Thread.sleep(1000);
executorService.submit(new Second());
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
In this situation First acquires a lock on the Lock object the immediately calls await on the Condition. The releases the lock and blocks on the Condition.
Second then acquires a lock on the Lock and calls signalAll on the Condition which awakes First.
First then reacquires the lock and continues execution, printing "Done!".
EDIT
The OP would like to call the method doWorkAsync with a specified period, if the method takes less time than the period then the process has to wait. If the method takes longer then the method should be called again immediately after.
The task needs to be stopped after a certain time.
At no point should the method be running more than once simultaneously.
The easiest approach would be to call the method from a ScheduledExecutorService, the Runnable would wrap the method and call get on the Future - blocking the scheduled executor until it is done.
This guarantees that the method is called with at least WAIT_TIME_BETWEEN_CALLS_SECS delay.
Then schedule another task that kills the first one after a set time.
final ScheduledExecutorService scheduledExecutorService = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
final Future<?> taskHandle = scheduledExecutorService.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
final ListenableFuture<Void> lf = doWorkAsync();
try {
doWorkAsync().get();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
} catch (ExecutionException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}, 0, WAIT_TIME_BETWEEN_CALLS_SECS, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
scheduledExecutorService.schedule(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
taskHandle.cancel(false);
}
}, TOTAL_TIME_SECS, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
The best solution would be call the raw Runnable on a ScheduledExecutorService rather than calling it on another executor and blocking on the ListenableFuture.
Think what you are looking for is The Reactor Pattern.
Is there a reason you don't want these things running at the same time? If what you want to do is chain them, you could use Futures. Akka has Composable Futures and mappable ones.
I'm using the below implementation to stop a thread in Tomcat. The code works, but I'm wondering two things:
Is it necessary to have Thread.sleep() in the try statement of MyConsumer.java?
Instead of checking for my boolean flag, running, should I remove the concept of a flag and just check for while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted)?
ServletContextListener:
public final class ApplicationListener implements ServletContextListener {
private Thread thread = null;
private MyConsumer k = null;
public ApplicationListener() {
}
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
k = new MyConsumer();
thread = new Thread(k);
thread.start();
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
if (thread != null) {
k.terminate();
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(ApplicationListener.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
}
MyConsumer.java:
public class MyConsumer implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean running = true;
public MyConsumer() {
}
public void terminate() {
running = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
doStuff();
Thread.sleep((long) 1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(MyConsumer.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
running = false;
}
}
}
Is it necessary to have Thread.sleep() in the try statement of MyConsumer.java
No. The sleep call, I presume, is there to make sure that doStuff() is executed with an interval of 1 second between every invocation, rather than executed continuously. If you want this 1 second interval, you need to leave the sleep call there. If you want doStuff() to be executed continuously, then you need to remove the sleep.
Instead of checking for my boolean flag, running, should I remove the concept of a flag and just check for while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted)?
Yes, that's what I would indeed do. It would remove the need for the flag, and would allow stopping the thread as soon as possible, rather than having to wait for the sleep call to return, after 1 second. The other advantage is that you can check if the thread is interrupted inside the doStuff() method, in case it's a long-running method that you want to stop ASAP.
There's no reason for your thread to sleep just to check for interruptions. You can call Thread.interupted() there instead.
Regarding the boolean running flag, it provides similar functionality of interrupted, except that it's not triggered by methods that throw InterruptedException. Depending on whether it makes sense to stop normal flow of operation in those methods, you should use one or the other mechanism, but not both.
See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/interrupt.html for a good overview of how interrupts are used.
I'm using a thread that is continuously reading from a queue.
Something like:
public void run() {
Object obj;
while(true) {
synchronized(objectsQueue) {
if(objectesQueue.isEmpty()) {
try {
objectesQueue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
obj = objectesQueue.poll();
}
}
// Do something with the Object obj
}
}
What is the best way to stop this thread?
I see two options:
1 - Since Thread.stop() is deprecated, I can implement a stopThisThread() method that uses a n atomic check-condition variable.
2 - Send a Death Event object or something like that to the queue. When the thread fetches a death event, it exits.
I prefer the 1st way, however, I don't know when to call the stopThisThread() method, as something might be on it's way to the queue and the stop signal can arrive first (not desirable).
Any suggestions?
The DeathEvent (or as it is often call, "poison pill") approach works well if you need to complete all of the work on the queue before shutting down. The problem is that this could take a long time.
If you want to stop as soon as possible, I suggest you do this
BlockingQueue<O> queue = ...
...
public void run() {
try {
// The following test is necessary to get fast interrupts. If
// it is replaced with 'true', the queue will be drained before
// the interrupt is noticed. (Thanks Tim)
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
O obj = queue.take();
doSomething(obj);
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// We are done.
}
}
To stop the thread t that instantiated with that run method, simply call t.interrupt();.
If you compare the code above with other answers, you will notice how using a BlockingQueue and Thread.interrupt() simplifies the solution.
I would also claim that an extra stop flag is unnecessary, and in the big picture, potentially harmful. A well-behaved worker thread should respect an interrupt. An unexpected interrupt simply means that the worker is being run in a context that the original programmer did not anticipate. The best thing is if the worker to does what it is told to do ... i.e. it should stop ... whether or not this fits with the original programmer's conception.
Why not use a scheduler which you simply can stop when required? The standard scheduler supports repeated scheduling which also waits for the worker thread to finish before rescheduling a new run.
ScheduledExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
service.scheduleWithFixedDelay(myThread, 1, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
this sample would run your thread with a delay of 10 sec, that means when one run finishes, it restarts it 10 seconds later. And instead of having to reinvent the wheel you get
service.shutdown()
the while(true) is not necessary anymore.
ScheduledExecutorService Javadoc
In your reader thread have a boolean variable stop. When you wish for this thread to stop set thius to true and interrupt the thread. Within the reader thread when safe (when you don't have an unprocessed object) check the status of the stop variable and return out of the loop if set. as per below.
public class readerThread extends Thread{
private volitile boolean stop = false;
public void stopSoon(){
stop = true;
this.interrupt();
}
public void run() {
Object obj;
while(true) {
if(stop){
return;
}
synchronized(objectsQueue) {
if(objectesQueue.isEmpty()) {
try {
objectesQueue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
if(stop){
return;
}
obj = objectesQueue.poll();
// Do something with the Object obj
}
}
}
}
public class OtherClass{
ThreadReader reader;
private void start(){
reader = ...;
reader.start();
}
private void stop(){
reader.stopSoon();
reader.join(); // Wait for thread to stop if nessasery.
}
}
Approach 1 is the preferred one.
Simply set a volatile stop field to true and call interrupt() on the running thread. This will force any I/O methods that wait to return with an InterruptedException (and if your library is written correctly this will be handled gracefully).
I think your two cases actually exhibit the same potential behavior. For the second case consider Thread A adds the DeathEvent after which Thread B adds a FooEvent. When your job Thread receives the DeathEvent there is still a FooEvent behind it, which is the same scenario you are describing in Option 1, unless you try to clear the queue before returning, but then you are essentially keeping the thread alive, when what you are trying to do is stop it.
I agree with you that the first option is more desirable. A potential solution would depend on how your queue is populated. If it is a part of your work thread class you could have your stopThisThread() method set a flag that would return an appropriate value (or throw Exception) from the enqueuing call i.e.:
MyThread extends Thread{
boolean running = true;
public void run(){
while(running){
try{
//process queue...
}catch(InterruptedExcpetion e){
...
}
}
}
public void stopThisThread(){
running = false;
interrupt();
}
public boolean enqueue(Object o){
if(!running){
return false;
OR
throw new ThreadNotRunningException();
}
queue.add(o);
return true;
}
}
It would then be the responsibility of the object attempting to enqueue the Event to deal with it appropriately, but at the least it will know that the event is not in the queue, and will not be processed.
I usually put a flag in the class that has the Thread in it and in my Thread code I would do. (NOTE: Instead of while(true) I do while(flag))
Then create a method in the class to set the flag to false;
private volatile bool flag = true;
public void stopThread()
{
flag = false;
}
public void run() {
Object obj;
while(flag) {
synchronized(objectsQueue) {
if(objectesQueue.isEmpty()) {
try {
objectesQueue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
obj = objectesQueue.poll();
}
}
// Do something with the Object obj
}
}